Written Communications (updated 9/4/2025) — Cupertino City Council, September 3, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CC 09-03-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments

From: Caroline Gupta
To: Public Comments
Subject: Re: Presentations and Written Communications for September 3, 2025 City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:24:29 AM
Attachments: 090325 CityCouncil Luthern Wiliams.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Luthern Williams, Head of School at Tessellations, will be submitting a Speaker Card at tonight’s meeting to share the following message with the City Council and community members in attendance:

Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Good evening Council Members,
My name is Luthern Williams, and I am the Head of School at Tessellations.

Tessellations is honored to be part of Cupertino. We are only one of two schools in the Bay Area dedicated to gifted and asynchronous learners — students who often struggle to fit in traditional classrooms and thrive, yet have incredible potential to give back to the world in significant ways. Because of their academic, social, emotional, and intellectual needs, they require modification in education, teaching, and parenting. We provide special education that is not largely addressed by public or private schools. Cupertino is a city known for the quality of its education, innovation, and excellence — and we believe it is fitting that Tessellations’ has its home here.

Our presence in Cupertino brings meaningful community benefits:

1. Strengthening Public Education – By renting from CUSD, we contribute over $3 million each year to the district. That is money that directly strengthens local public schools.

2. Supporting Local Businesses and – Our families and staff shop in Cupertino, dine in Cupertino, and invest in Cupertino every single day. Some families have even moved here to be closer to school.

3. Increase Neighborhood and Real Estate Value - By keeping our campus vibrant and active, we not only prevent the decline that often comes with a vacant site but also add value to the neighborhood as a whole.

We want you to know that we hear our neighbors’ concerns about traffic and safety matters, and we have put in place measures to help:
staggered drop-offs and pick-ups
carpooling programs
and on-site staff directing traffic to keep it safe.

On June 3, we welcomed 33 neighbors to our school to share information and explore a path forward. While the meeting was productive and a Neighborhood Partnership Committee was formed—including Tessellation's parents, neighbors, and administrators—the Committee has stalled, as some volunteer neighbors appear to have been dissuaded from participating.

Despite our efforts and sharing details about our small high school program, misinformation has been presented to the Planning Commission about our 5 students in grades 9 and 10. Even with a clear timeline in our CUP application to move the program off this campus by 2029–2030 and by adding a no driving clause in our contracts, these students, who just want to learn alongside their friends and their community, have been made to feel unwelcome. Being told they cannot return has been devastating for them, their families, and their teachers. No child should ever be a casualty in a political battle, yet the misinformation has caused exactly that harm.

I would like to announce that we are now withdrawing our request to include a high school in our CUP, even though it would have meant fewer than 20 students on campus by the time we moved.

Cupertino is already known worldwide as a city that fosters innovation and supports excellence in education. Tessellations gives Cupertino another reason to be proud — of being the home to one of the only schools in the Bay Area dedicated to meeting the needs of these exceptional children.

Thank you for your time and for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of this special school.

Best,
Caroline Gupta
Caroline Gupta
Director of Facility & Operations
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Email: [email protected]
https://www.name-coach.com/caroline-gupta
Curious about what's happening at school this week?
Check out our social media feed!
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:34 PM City of Cupertino <[email protected]> wrote:

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

City of Cupertino
Presentations and Written Communications
for September 3, 2025 City Council Meeting
Presentations and Written Communications have been added for the September 3, 2025 City Council Meeting to include the following:

Presentations:

CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 16. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance Amendments_Staff Presentation
CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 17. Oversized Vehicle Parking Ordinance_Staff Presentation CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 18. Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study_Staff Presentation
CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 19. Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters_Staff Presentation
Written Communications: Received by 4:00 p.m. today.

The information can be accessed from our website either through Agendas and Minutes or City Records.
city of Cupertino
City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Good evening Councilmembers,
My name is Luthern Williams, and I am the
Head of School at Tessellations.

Tessellations is honored to be part of
Cupertino. We are only one of two
schools in the Bay Area dedicated to
gifted and asynchronous learners —
students who often struggle to fit in
traditional classrooms and thrive, yet have
incredible potential to give back to the world
in significant ways. Because of their
academic, social, emotional, and
intellectual needs, they require modification
in education, teaching, and parenting. We
provide special education that is not largely
addressed by public or private schools.

Cupertino is a city known for the quality of
its education, innovation, and excellence —
and we believe it is fitting that Tessellations’
has its home here.

Our presence in Cupertino brings
meaningful community benefits:

1. Strengthening Public Education –
By renting from CUSD, we contribute
over $3 million each year to the district.

That is money that directly strengthens
local public schools.

2. Supporting Local Businesses and
– Our families and staff shop in
Cupertino, dine in Cupertino, and invest
in Cupertino every single day. Some
families have even moved here to be
closer to school.

3. Increase Neighborhood and Real
Estate Value - By keeping our campus
vibrant and active, we not only prevent
the decline that often comes with a
vacant site but also add value to the
neighborhood as a whole.

We want you to know that we hear our
neighbors’ concerns about traffic and safety
matters, and we have put in place
measures to help:
●staggered drop-offs and pick-ups
●carpooling programs
●and on-site staff directing traffic to keep
it safe.

On June 3, we welcomed 33 neighbors to
our school to share information and explore
a path forward. While the meeting was
productive and a Neighborhood Partnership
Committee was formed—including
Tessellation's parents, neighbors, and
administrators—the Committee has stalled,
as some volunteer neighbors appear to
have been dissuaded from participating.

Despite our efforts and sharing details
about our small high school program,
misinformation has been presented to the
Planning Commission about our 5 students
in grades 9 and 10. Even with a clear
timeline in our CUP application to move the
program off this campus by 2029–2030 and
by adding a no driving clause in our
contracts, these students, who just want to
learn alongside their friends and their
community, have been made to feel
unwelcome. Being told they cannot return
has been devastating for them, their
families, and their teachers. No child
should ever be a casualty in a political
battle, yet the misinformation has
caused exactly that harm.

I would like to announce that we are now
withdrawing our request to include a
high school in our CUP, even though it
would have meant fewer than 20
students on campus by the time we
moved.

Cupertino is already known worldwide as a
city that fosters innovation and supports
excellence in education. Tessellations gives
Cupertino another reason to be proud — of
being the home to one of the only schools
in the Bay Area dedicated to meeting the
needs of these exceptional children.

Thank you for your time and for giving me
the opportunity to speak on behalf of this
special school.

Good evening Councilmembers,
My name is Luthern Williams, and I am the Head of School at Tessellations.

Cupertino is a city known for the quality of its education, innovation, and excellence — and we believe it is fitting that Tessellations’ has its home here.

Our presence in Cupertino brings meaningful community benefits:

1. Strengthening Public Education – By renting from CUSD, we contribute over $3 million each year to the district. That is money that directly strengthens local public schools.

We want you to know that we hear our neighbors’ concerns about traffic and safety matters, and we have put in place measures to help:
● staggered drop-offs and pick-ups
● carpooling programs
● and on-site staff directing traffic to keep it safe.

I would like to announce that we are now withdrawing our request to include a high school in our CUP, even though it would have meant fewer than 20 students on campus by the time we moved.

Thank you for your time and for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of this special school.

From: Lina
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; Gian Martire Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT – NOT ON THE AGENDA
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:15:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Date: September 3, 2025
Written Comments Regarding the Proposed Mary Avenue Villas Project (APN 326-27-053) To: The Honorable Mayor, Members of the Cupertino City Council, City Manager Tina Kapoor, and City Planning Staff
As a longtime resident of the Garden Gate neighborhood, I am submitting this communication to express my strong opposition to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas Project at this site: APN 326-27-053.

My participation in creating the petition with Walter, and community advocacy activities including membership in 2 Garden Gate/ Mary Ave WhatsApp groups, allowed me to hear first-hand from diverse Garden Gate residents from Arroyo Village, Glenbrook, Casa De Anza, and the Garden Gate Elementary School neighborhood. I will summarize the collective sentiment: Residents believe this site is fundamentally unsuitable for this housing development for a vulnerable IDD population due to its unsuitable location and the significant negative impacts it would have on community safety, traffic, and overall quality of life. As you are well aware, Mary Avenue is a bustling artery, serving as a main route for school traffic to Garden Gate Elementary School, a truck route for the Cupertino Public Works facility, and a key recreational path. It is already heavily utilized daily by a diverse population of pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, and young children. It doesn't make sense to build onto parking spots and take away public land on this multi-use street that in recent years has become a row of high-density housing. The neighborhood is still recoiling from the loss of retail and enjoyment on this street.

Neighbors are rooting for more affordable housing, especially ELI housing, done in a responsible manner. Some neighbors have already started actively brainstorming alternative APNs for this important project.

The proposed plan lacks safeguards and presents serious safety hazards for all community members, including future IDD residents. Examples:

Poor ingress/egress
Driveways placed directly opposite of Glenbrook’s driveway will inevitably lead to increased traffic congestion and a higher risk of accidents No loading zones/short term parking for Amazon trucks, service vehicles (anticipated with IDD population)
Increased cars stopping in middle of the road
The narrowing of the road, bike lanes, and their buffers, along with the lack of a bypass lane, would also pose a significant risk, particularly for emergency vehicles.

Jaywalking problem
Parallel parking on only one side of Mary Ave but no crosswalk Danger for IDD population: walkers, canes, wheelchair
Furthermore, the project would eliminate 89 public right-of-way parking spots, which are already at maximum capacity during City-sponsored events at Memorial Park and the Quinlan Community Center. This parking shortage will only be compounded by the additional 136 housing units remaining to be built at the former Oaks Center site. Neighbors complain already about how difficult it is to reach Stevens Creek Blvd or I-85 in the summer (with weekly City events) and whenever major community events are held at Memorial Park.

Here are several quotes from neighbors:
"Terrible idea to build there"
“Almost nobody we know think this project is a good idea, nor is it appropriate for the land”
“There will be many accidents waiting to happen with such congested housing” “It is too small a parcel for such a huge project”
“This location is illogical”
"Health and Safety issues must be seriously considered for challenged populations at this location"
"Why try to squeeze 40 units into such a narrow lot? Why doesn't the City save up BMR funds for land purchases and do it right, do it with more units?" "Another housing project pitched by the Rotary Club in 2010 for 18 cottages at this very same site was rejected by the City. Why is it that they can reject it then but approve it now? They have already evaluated this site as unsuitable before." "It's already difficult for Glenbrook residents to merge onto traffic during commute and school hours. More housing across the street will increase the burden [on them]" "It is a big problem together with the Westport project" "Do they understand that Mary Ave is our main way out of the neighborhood? The other routes through Stelling are congested, especially with school traffic" "Parking is going to spill over from Memorial Park all the way down to our streets [Lubec and beyond]. Where will we park?"
Please view the community petition at: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-mary-avenue-villasproject-at-this-unsuitable-location I have also attached the slides/photos from today's Sept 3, 2025 City Council Open Communications session for inclusion in the Public Comments.

Mary Ave Sept 3 City Council Slideshow.pdf
Garden Gate residents urge the City Council to recognize the overwhelming voice of the over 350 residents and visitors who oppose this project and the encroachment on the much needed public right of way. Consider our community's safety and quality of life and halt the Mary Avenue Villas Project at this unsuitable location and find alternative site(s) and mitigations.

Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Resident
Mary Avenue Villas Housing Project:

The Wrong site
A Response to the July 15, 2025 City Council Meeting Study Session (Item 11)
Cupertino residents and citizens
Garden Gate Coalition
Arroyo Village / Westport
(APN: 326-27-053)
Our voice: over 350 residents and visitors signed a
petition opposing this project
• Casa De Anza
• Glenbrook Apt
• Arroyo Townhomes
• Garden Gate single family
homes
• Dog Park visitors
• Don Burnett bridge visitors
• Memorial Park visitors
• Realtors
• https://www.change.org/p/halt- the-mary-avenue-villas-project-at- this-unsuitable-location Proposed
housing site
Garden Gate
neighborhood
opposition

1. Mary Ave is a bustling artery, serving as a main route for school/family traffic, and a key recreational path.

Main route for school traffic and truck route for the
Cupertino Public Works Service Center

2. Mary Ave is bustling: cyclists, pedestrians,
joggers, young children utilize Mary Ave bike paths
to Don Burnett Bridge

3. Multimodal
transportation
routes fully
utilized daily
This is a Friday
morning at 8am
outside Glenbrook
Apt and Mary Ave
Dog Park
Cars entering Glenbrook
Line-up of cars exiting
Glenbrook, turning right
towards Lubec St/Garden
Gate Elementary School and
left to I-85 / Stevens Creek
Blvd
Cars going to Stevens
Creek and I-85
Pedestrians
Bike commuter to
Don Burnett
Bike/Pedestrian
Bridge, Sunnyvale

4. Homestead High
School track & field
students train along
Mary Ave daily

5. Plan poses pedestrian and bike safety
hazards
• Poor ingress/egress (figure on right)
• No loading zones for Amazon trucks, service
vehicles
• Increased cars stopping in middle of the road
• No bypass lane / too narrow
• Jaywalking problem
• Parallel parking on only one side of Mary Ave
but no crosswalk
• Danger for IDD population: walkers, canes,
wheelchair
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/CityCouncil/Council-Informational-Memos Parking driveway placed
directly opposite of
Glenbrook’s driveway

6. Narrowed roads and lack of bypass lane will pose
safety hazards for emergency vehicles
Photo taken on Mary Ave in 2025

7. Mary Ave is the main route out to Stevens Creek Blvd and I-85 for >1,000 Garden Gate residents.

Shown below: Bypass route Greenleaf Dr. is congested with daily school traffic (Garden Gate Elementary School)

8. Parking shortage- we cant stand to lose 89 more!
Mary Ave Parking is at
maximum capacity during
City-sponsored events
• despite availability of De
Anza College Parking Lot
• despite Westport Building
1 (136 units) not yet built
at former Oaks Center
No parking available for
City’s Dog Park visitors
No curbside parking for Casa De
Anza and Glenbrook visitors
Photo taken during Kids 'N Fun Festival Saturday Aug 23, 2025

9. Mary Ave traffic will worsen after Westport
project (136 units) completed
Photo taken on Mary Ave during Memorial Park community event 2025

10. Lack of long term parking solutions for
Memorial Park & Quinlan Event visitors
• Will harm the quality and attendance of City and Community Events for ALL residents
• De Anza College parking is not a full-proof “solution” currently • “All parking at De Anza requires a paid fee or permit, except in spaces designated for disabled parking or 30-minute visitor parking.”
• “The parking fee for special events on campus, including the Flea Market and some Flint Center events, is $5. Parking for select Flint Center events is $10.” • Mary Ave can’t handle the parking needs, and most certainly not after Westport is finished https://www.deanza.edu/parking/permits.html
Take-home points
This is too small (and polluted/noisy) a parcel for such a large project • ESPECIALLY for the vulnerable, IDD population
Adds major community safety concerns
Taking over public right-of-way and narrowing roads will lead to accidents
Our City desperately needs long term ELI/IDD housing solutions, but… • This site plan is not suitable
• Complete mitigation is not feasible
From: Cupertino Matters
To: City Clerk
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Oral Communications, City Council, Sept. 3, 2025 Fwd: Mary Avenue Villas Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:46:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Janet inadvertently missed including you in the emails.

Please include in written Oral Communications for City Council, Sept. 3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Hal and Janet Van Zoeren <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:15 PM
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>, Kitty Moore <[email protected]>, J.R.

Fruen <[email protected]>, Ray Wang <[email protected]>, Sheila Mohan <[email protected]>, cc: Andy Lief <[email protected]>, Kathy Robinson <[email protected]>, Gia Pham HCC <[email protected]>, Hal and Janet Van Zoeren <[email protected]>, Jean Bedord <[email protected]> Dear City Council Members and City Manager,
Our daughter was born in Pittsburgh, PA, where she began receiving “Early Intervention Services" when she was one and a half weeks old. People there were optimistic about her future.

When my husband, daughter, and I moved to Cupertino in 1976, many individuals with Down syndrome and other forms of IDD were still living in institutions like Agnews Developmental Center. In fact, the first pediatrician that we went to here gave me the “riot act” for not placing our daughter, who was then almost 6 months old, in an institution because she had Down syndrome. That doctor told me that I was not being fair to my husband, myself, or any future children we might have if we kept raising her at home. About a week later, I went back to that pediatrician and told her off!
Here she was able to participate in similar services at both Hope Rehabilitation Services and C.A.R. (Now known as Abilitypath). When she was 2 years old, she attended a Santa Clara County program for children ages 18 months to 3 years old who were experiencing communicative delays. Later, at age 3, she entered the Cupertino School District. At that time, the district only had TMR (Trainable) and EMR (Educable) classes at Nan Allen School, for 3-year-olds who were “mentally retarded”. However, because Cindy was already ahead of the 3-year-olds in those classes, I convinced the newly hired director of special education to open a new class for 3-year-olds, who had benefited from participation in early intervention classes.

That class was housed in an empty kindergarten classroom at Murdock School. During recess, the children in this class were not allowed on the kindergarten playground because of the bias of certain teachers, the principal, and many parents. They spent recess on a black-top area with no equipment. Finally, we convinced this community that these children were in no way “contagious” or otherwise detrimental to their children, and our children were allowed to play in the kindergarten outdoor playground.

Over the next few years, this class moved to Hoover School, when Murdock closed, and then, when that closed, to Garden Gate School. After 3 years at Garden Gate School, the children in her class were dispersed, and she went to Bishop School in Sunnyvale and later to the Jackson Hearing Center in Palo Alto before returning to Cupertino at Nimitz, Dillworth, Miller Junior High Schools, and finally to Lynbrook High, where she passed the exam to receive her High School Diploma. After Murdock School, she was well received at all her schools by their student bodies, staff, and local communities.

After graduating in 1996, Cindy moved into a dormitory at Taft Community College, near Bakersfield, where she earned a Certificate of Achievement from their Transition to Independent Living Program. Finding an apartment in Cupertino, after graduating from Taft College was exceedingly difficult as was getting a HUD voucher even though she had signed on their waiting list when she was exiting junior high school. She applied at Steven’s Creek Village for an “affordable” apartment and at several other apartments that had affordable units, and reapplied annually at these places, but we did not learn until her senior year at Taft that her applications were being tossed in the trash because her annual income was not 2-3 times the “affordable” rent.

In 1996, while Cindy was at Taft, I had joined a small group of other parents, and together we created the Housing Choices Coalition to function as a catalyst to bring together the necessary entities to begin developing affordable housing units set aside for individuals with IDD in the bay area.Since then, the organization has created hundreds of units for people with IDD in the Bay Area, but none in Cupertino, where land is exceedingly expensive and incredibly difficult to locate in areas close to the amenities our residents with IDD will need.

The Cupertino Rotary has come up with a unique concept for creating land that meets the requirements for building some IDD units.

When the Cupertino community was discussing what they wanted to be built on the old Valco property, most community members, whether pro- or anti-housing, were in favor of including 40 set-aside units for people with IDD. Unfortunately, that version of the project will never be built, and those units were lost in the new development plans.

The proposed Mary Avenue Project will replace 19 of those lost units, will provide 20 additional units for others who are also experiencing similar deep housing needs, and will create a small apartment community that is diversified rather than being exclusively IDD.

Adults like Cindy, living on an annual income of about $12,000, can only afford extremely lowincome housing (below 30% of AMI). Others who have some gainful employment or the help of a roommate’s income may qualify for very low-income units (50% below AMI).

Please welcome our community members with IDD to stay in Cupertino, where they grew up.

Let others see that Cupertino is indeed a compassionate, loving community that extends a helping hand to its members who may be less fortunate, but are equally valued! Thank You!
Most Sincerely,
Janet and Harold Van Zoeren
408-482-5763
From: Joe Hauser
To: Public Comments
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - NOT ON THE AGENDA
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:06:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Cupertino Council Members
My name is Joe Hauser. I am a 50-year resident of Cupertino. I have deep concerns regarding the safety of occupants, and of the neighborhood problems that would result if the proposed construction of housing for challenged individuals on Mary Avenue is approved.

This site is probably the densest, and therefore the most dangerous area in the city for challenged individuals. If the proposed housing is built, the residents will have a very difficult time crossing Mary Avenue (the only pedestrian crossings are at Lubec Street, and near Memorial Park, a distance of close to half a mile). The nearest retail is on the other side of Memorial Park. Since some of these challenged individuals will need walkers, canes or wheelchairs, it presents a safety issue for these people. Besides dodging cars there are also bicycles, and individuals on motorized bikes and skateboards. Even the city vehicles from the city yard will present problems. Furthermore, during major activities at Memorial Park, parking and large crowds will cause difficult situations for all.

The immediate area includes:
1.Memorial Park (Tennis, Softball, Pickleball, playground, and picnic facilities)
2.The Senior Center 3.Bicycle lanes to the Mary Avenue Bridge 4.The De Anza College main entrance 5.The Mary Avenue Dog Park 6.The Cupertino City Yard 7.Stevens Creek entrance to the 280/85 freeways
8.A Storage Facility near the Cupertino termination of Mary Avenue
9. New Condos built on the Oaks site 10. Existing homes, condos and apartments Mary Avenue is the only main artery to accommodate the residents. The alternative consists of two residential streets that empty into Stelling Road. This presents a major problem during the morning, and evening rush hour, since the only street that has a traffic light onto Stelling is an s-shaped narrow road that goes by Garden Gate Elementary school. During the morning and midafternoon commute, access through this street is almost impossible in that parents bringing their child to school park along the narrow street, or block the street entirely. The other is a street ending with a stop sign to Stelling Road.

During the rush hour commutes, it is almost impossible at times to get onto Stelling Road.Many residents therefore use Mary Avenue instead. Also, since most residents use the freeway, Mary Avenue is their only logical choice.

Consider the problems if there were an emergency during rush hour.

In addition to the problems outlined above, Pollution and Noise from the adjacent freeway can be very detrimental to already compromised individuals.

As a resident I have seen several accidents and close calls in this area, especially during Memorial Park events.I personally have a challenged grandson who has Down Syndrome and Autism, so I can relate to the need for projects of this type. However, I strongly feel that there are major safety concerns for individuals who would reside in this project if it remains at this site.

We all want the best for the disabled individuals in this housing complex, but this is not a safe or easy access area for them. Certainly, there must be an area in our city where this project is safer, and makes more sense. Please consider alternatives to this very dangerous proposal.

Thank You
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Liang Chao; Tina Kapoor; City Council; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly Subject: Fw: Questions on city obligations due to Mary Ave Villas.

Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:03:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.

Thank you.

Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members,
I strongly urge you to please ask for future agenda item in the short term for a Mary Ave Villas study session to cover the below questions in detail and deliberate on these. An informational memo is not sufficient. These are serious enough concerns that merit an active deliberation by council on these questions and their responses.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:

On Monday, August 25, 2025, 10:02 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer] Dear Mayor Chao, Acting Manager Kapoor,
Can we get detailed answers to each of the below questions from the city or better yet publish a FAQ from the city on these questions so all residents can see this.

Further I urge you to ask CAO to revisit the info memo on Article 34. The county and city are separate jurisdictions. While Article 34 may not apply at the county level due to use of a previously approved bond measure for affordable housing being the source of many county funding that has nothing to do with whether the city is obligated to consider Article 34 as the city is its own jurisdiction.

Please ask for a revised info memo on Article 34.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (representing myself only, as a Cupertino resident and taxpayer) On Saturday, July 19, 2025, 6:57 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Acting Manager Kapoor, CAO and Director Fu, Deputy Director Connolly, Director Mosley,
I asked a number of questions during public comment on Mary Ave Villas. How does the community get answers to these questions.

The council voted to move ahead with a number of topics that were not deliberated on. You owe it to residents and taxpayers to thoroughly debate and deliberate on those questions and protect the city from any issues both fiscally and legally.

My public comment is here again for your recap:

Cupertino City Council Meeting - July 15, 2025 (Part 2) A number of questions:

1. There is case precedent on Article 34 applying to projects involving a city ground lease that was run by a third party operator with city financial support, either with BMR funds or bond money.

There are multiple case precedents in fact. Why do these not apply.

Cupertino City Council Meeting - July
15, 2025 (Part 2)
By City of Cupertino
Please be very thoughtful and deliberate on this so as to protect the city from liabilities.

2. Will the city hold title on the ground lease and in documents with debt and equity providers. If so is the city partly liable for issues arising from operator insolvency, operator non-compliance to financial or state/federal/county law obligations.

3. Is the project operations funded from cash from operations. Or does it depend on ongoing city BMR funds in part. What financial ongoing obligations may the city potentially incur in an unforeseen manner due to this project.

4. What happens if Charities goes insolvent / declared bankruptcy on this project.

5. What happens if the Rotary cannot meet its obligations in any form including financially for the project including ongoing operations.

6. Can the city be sued by occupants, vendors, residents or anyone else or someone representing them as the city is the land owner.

Please investigate this thoroughly as there is precedent here.

6. What prevents Charities from selling this property to another commercial party that will no longer operate the intended use but convert to regular multifamily. How will you mandate this parcel remain 100% affordable and for IDD in proposed form.

7. Will the city have to takeover operations if no operator can be found.

8. Will the city have to handle move out of occupants if Charities files for bankruptcy on this project and no operator can be found.

9. Will the city need to subsidize this project for operations or for future operators to continue should Charities be unable to.

10. What is the history of any past project like this. What is the longest tenure of a third party operator successfully operating such a project in a public agency ground lease without a sale, change of use, bankruptcy, or needing ongoing public agency support from the land owner.

11. What are the covenant clauses that place obligations on the city from debt and from any state and federal laws involving this type of housing.

12. You have set a precedent where any buffered bike lane with side walk or parking could be converted into a parcel and handed over byright to an operator in the name of affordable housing only to be sold in a few years for regular commercial use. Is that your understanding as well. If not what prevents this. You just reduced a road lane on DeAnza. By the precedent set you could have set any number of parcels could be created from that DeAnza Blvd road lane you reclaimed. What would prevent that.

13. Please share contact information for Charities so residents may separately ask these and other questions to them
Please ensure questions are thoroughly deliberated and thoughtfully addressed rather than prematurely dismissed.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing in behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Liang Chao; Tina Kapoor; Kitty Moore
Subject: Fw: City’s General Fund is subsidizing non-residents.

Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:58:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, August 27, 2025, 9:41 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, Interim Manager Kapoor, Cupertino General fund is used to fund the Cupertino Senior Center whereas other parks and rec facilities are funded by the Enterprise Fund. Unlike other parks and rec facilities the Senior Center is not required to cover its costs. 50% of Cupertino Senior Center are non-residents. What is the city subsidizing out of the General Fund per non-resident.

I ask you to agendaize this item or work with Interim Manager Kapoor and Director Sander to address this with the goal that the city does not spend any dollars subsidizing non-residents.

The Senior Center is a crown jewel of Cupertino. We must subsidize our resident seniors. We are under no obligation to spend our general fund dollars subsidizing non-residents.

Please share what is the subsidy per member, and what is the plan to raise fees on non-residents to cover all costs and maybe even cover the costs of our seniors. We should significantly raise pricing on non-residents to where this center is not being burdened by non-residents.

Our residents cannot get enrolled in Senior Center programs when enrollment opens. Please also have this looked into so that enrollment opens for seniors a few days ahead of enrollment for non-residents.

Thank you.

Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Oral comms city council sept 3 2025 Mary ave housing Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:22:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I am writing you regarding my concerns about soil contamination on Mary avenue as reported in a document supplied to the city. It is not surprising to me that there is a contamination issue because there was a significant issue nearby in the area of the dog park years ago. The dog park became more expensive and took longer because of the cleanup that was required. I am concerned because this site was never the subject of an EIR. We need to protect the future residents. Can you please shed light on the outcome of this report and what the city is going to do about it? Here is a link: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fstatic1.squarespace.com%2fstatic%2f669991f2f954bc6767833e2b%2ft%2f68a6389a64feaf1b33fb6f2b%2f1755723930092%2fMary%20Ave%20Phase%20II%20City%20Peer%20Review.pdf&c=E,1,nTh7sPtzbfQC0U7gMzQgIArfrZfYRWXKX6GTkWdviUM8rstFwKEABopX_tKB7SD_bYRYDnwDPwyL9SXDVPf86qKsJF53bCjIWh42DsJ0pHN4aicClVK19MykfE,&typo=1 Thanks, Rhoda Fry
From: Swim5am (Connie Cunningham)
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council
Subject: 2025-09-03 CC Oral Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 7:49:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please add my comments to the written record.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
2025-09-03 CC Oral Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Good Evening, Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and City Manager:

My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.

I am speaking tonight to Thank the City Council for its vote on July 15, 2025 to move this project forward after the Study Session.I was excited to see that vote.I am supportive of the application to develop new Extremely Low Income homes for Intellectually Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD) and, also, other Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units on Cityowned property along Mary Avenue.

This is much needed housing that has been on the Council’s Work Program for many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and I was new to the Housing Commission. I have attended the Housing Commission and City Council meetings for this project.I have also attended the Housing Element meetings at which this site was identified for this purpose.It is hard to find land in Cupertino.I applaud the Council and the City Planners for working hard to find this special place.

Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing. It will also facilitate the City’s goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness. Many Individuals who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled live with aging parents, therefore, these apartments will help these individuals, their aging parents, and our community.

It was good to see that the issue of parking was discussed and that the plans for Mary Avenue have been published so the details can be more fully understood by the community.

When this project comes forward for signature, I urge you to vote “YES”! Thank you for this chance to speak tonight.

Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
CC 09-03-2025
Item No.12
Accounts Payable
for the periods
ending July 18, 2025
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Sept 3 2025 agenda 12 accounts payable questions Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:30:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Sept 3 2025 agenda 12 a/p questions...

It looks like there is an Amazon charge for the senior center that was billed to the Amazon account.

Was the senior center account ultimately charged for that transaction? Separately, it seems that we spend an awful lot of money for joint venture Silicon Valley? What are we getting for that money?
I look at the members on the board and I wonder how we are being served by an organization that has pge as a board member.

Thanks Much,
Rhoda
CC 09-03-2025
Item No.16
Amending Municipal
Code Chapters 19.08
(Definitions), and 19.112
(Accessory Dwelling Units)
Written Communications
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: [email protected]; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Number 16: Adu Study Session on 9/3/2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:42:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:
(Please consider the following public input on Item Number 16 on the Study Session on Adus at The 9/3/25 City Council Meeting on 9/3/25).

It is appropriate to have a Study Session on Adus in Cupertino. The state has consistently enacted Legislative bills in the last seven years that the public have never been able to vote on concerning adus. It is truly legislation with no representation. We are subjected to laws from Sacramento without the public being able to do anything to object concerning adus.

The adu laws from Sacramento are not the wisest laws and suffer from zero public input. They are Passed and have never been studied or analyzed for real world applicability etc. Who has housing Laws that streamline construction of something the public has never been allowed to express their opinion on? I assume the state does not want to hear from the public about adus, because there Are indeed complaints from the public about them.

San Jose just allowed the selling of adus which the state evidently okayed last year without asking the public about it. Selling adus is a big step off a big cliff and I hope Cupertino never takes that step.

If the state is not going to allow the public to express their opinions on adu laws, what good are the Adu laws the state is passing anyway? The state seems to be scared of the public and calls them Names if they ask questions or make comments about the adu laws. One wonders about the adu laws in general and how they keep getting more draconian all the time. Why is this and maybe We need a statewide study session on adus also?
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Liang Chao
To: Tina Kapoor
Cc: Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; City Clerk
Subject: Questions for Agenda Item 16: Progress on Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units.

Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:15:56 PM
I hope to get some information on the progress of our ADU program.

Please include the email below for the Public Comment for Agenda Item 16. yMore specifically, here were my questions from July 6, 2025.

I wonder what's the progress on the items mentioned in those sections, especially the ones with timeframe for June 2025 or December 2025? Specifically:
"Incentives will be explored by June 2025," according to the staff comment in the GP 2024 Annual Report.
"Grants will be applied to provide as ADU production incentives as opportunities become available," according to the staff comment in the GP 2024 Annual Report.
"Evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually, starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within one year if ADU targets are not being met," per the 2023-031 Housing Element.

Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:15 PM
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Fu <[email protected]>; Luke Connolly <[email protected]> Subject: Progress on Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units.

When I found out that the anti-displacement policy was going on the Council agenda back in April, I had inquired on a list of policy updates necessary for the implementation of the Housing Element. At the time, I was told only that the Safety Element will be updated.

I learned two weeks ago that the ADU policy will be updated due to new state laws.

When I attended an event by the newly formed Small Builders' Association, I learned that Campbell has adopted some ADU acceleration program. Then, I thought I should understand what's being planned for Cupertino. So, I reviewed "Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units" of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.

I wonder what's the progress on the items mentioned in those sections, especially the ones with timeframe for June 2025 or December 2025?
Specifically:
"Incentives will be explored by June 2025," according to the staff comment in the GP 2024 Annual Report.
"Grants will be applied to provide as ADU production incentives as opportunities become available," according to the staff comment in the GP 2024 Annual Report. "Evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually, starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within one year if ADU targets are not being met," per the 2023-031 Housing Element.

Thank you for your help with the information!
I included the relevant sections from the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element and the 2024 General Plan Annual Report (from the 12/19/2024 Housing Commission agenda) below, for easy reference for myself.
(BTW, I cannot find the 2024 annual general plan report on the general plan page https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/General-Plan/General-Plan-Community-Vision, so I just used a version that I found earlier from the Housing Commission agenda, which may not be the final version.)
Liang
============
From the 2024 General Plan Annual Report (from the 12/19/2024 Housing Commission agenda) :

The Staff Comment for STRATEGY HE‐1.3.8:

Comment: “Not an action item. The City continued to encourage the production of second units. In 2023, the City issued 50 building permits for ADUs ‐ this is approximately 33% of the total number of ADU building permits issued during the entire 5th Cycle. The ordinance is regularly updated to comply with state law.

In 2021, the City developed a pre‐approved ADU program to further incentive the creation of ADUs. One property has utilitzed the pre‐approved ADU program since then.

New zoning development standards were approved through a public hearing before the City Council in July 2024. (Ordinance 24‐2262, Ordinance 24‐2261).

The City of Cupertino has joined a regional effort in Santa Clara County to use a new survey to collect rent data on new ADUs built to determine affordability. The survey has been posted to the website and is active as of January 2025.

The pre‐approved ADU program continues to be offerred and the program will be monitored as part of the APR.

Incentives will be explored by June 2025. Grants will be applied to provide as ADU production incentives as opportunities become available.

In 2024, 41 ADU building permits were issued and 46 ADUs received certificates of occupancy.”
==============
From "Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units" of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element:

Under the "Timeframe" section, the section reads:
"Amend the municipal code by June 2024 and update ADU
materials available by June 2024. Allow ADUs ongoing beyond State law requirements, Present proposed code amendment within six months of Housing Element adoption. Identify incentives by June 2025, and apply annually for funding to support ADU incentives. Evaluate effectiveness of ADU approvals annually, starting April 2024, and identify additional incentives within one year if ADU targets are not being met."
Under "Objectives", the section reads:
"60 ADUs to improve housing mobility and improve proximity to services and employment opportunities for lower- and moderate income households, with targeted outreach in high-opportunity
areas with high rates of renter overpayment, such as the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, and areas in close proximity to jobs, such as the North Blaney and Garden Gate neighborhoods, as well as lower-density neighborhoods. (40 ADUs are assumed to address the displacement risk)."
========
From "Strategy HE-1.3.8 Accessory Dwelling Units" of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element:

STRATEGY HE‐1.3.8: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
The City will encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) throughout the city through
the following actions, which are aimed at providing an increased supply of units affordable to very low,
low, and moderate income households and therefore provide affordable housing in high opportunity
neighborhoods and help reduce displacement risk for low income households resulting from overpayment:
● Amend the municipal code to be consistent with the latest State legislation related to ADUs, in accordance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 et seq.
● Continue to provide guidance and educational materials for building ADUs on the City’s website, including permitting procedures.

Additionally, the City will biennially present homeowner associations with information about the community and neighborhood benefits of ADUs, and inform them that covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) prohibiting ADUs are contrary to State law.
● To increase mobility for lower income households, proactively advertise the benefits of ADUs by distributing multilingual informational materials in areas of high opportunity and a limited number of renter households, including the Monta Vista North and Oak Valley neighborhoods, to increase mobility for low‐income households by posting flyers in community gathering places and providing information to community groups and homeowners’ associations at least annually.
● Continue to offer the pre‐approved ADU program and post links to approved plans as available.
● Annually monitor ADU production and affordability as a part of the Annual Progress Report process and adjust or expand the focus of the education and outreach efforts.
● Apply annually, if grants are available, for funding to provide incentives, for homeowners to construct ADUs affordable to very low, low, and moderate‐income tenants.
● Permit up to a maximum of three, 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs, or conversion ADUs on all single family zoned properties and a maximum of up to two 800 s.f. attached or detached ADUs, JADUs or conversion ADUs on all duplex zoned properties, which is in excess of the number of ADUs allowed under state law.
● Identify incentives for construction of affordable ADUs with new development, which may include deferring collection of impact fees for the square footage associated with the ADU until issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
CC 09-03-2025
Item No.17
Oversized Vehicle
Parking Regulations
Written Communications

CC 09-03-2025
Item No.18
Stevens Creek Blvd
Corridor Vision Study
Written Communications

Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember
City of San Jose
Council District 1, 18th floor
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose , CA 95113
(408) 535-4901
[email protected]
www.sjdistrict1.com
September 2, 2025
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RE: Item 18: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study I am writing to you regarding the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, which is scheduled to return before your Council on September 3rd. This regional effort has been many years in the making, reflecting extensive coordination among our respective jurisdictions, as well as input from community members, commissions, and technical staff. I respectfully submit this letter in strong support of Cupertino’s adoption of the Vision Study and the accompanying staff resolution.

The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is a critical east–west arterial, connecting our communities, supporting a broad range of businesses, and serving thousands of daily commuters. As you are well aware, the challenges and opportunities associated with this corridor extend well beyond the borders of any single jurisdiction. Adoption of the Vision Study by each participating city ensures that we can move forward with a shared, coherent framework for addressing safety, multimodal mobility, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability. Cupertino’s participation is indispensable to the success of this collaborative effort.

I recognize that Cupertino must also carefully weigh issues of fiscal responsibility, prioritization of local investments, and alignment with community priorities and adoption of the Vision Study does not constitute a binding commitment to fund or construct any specific project. Rather, it represents an affirmation that Cupertino, alongside its regional partners, will continue to plan thoughtfully and strategically for the future of this important corridor. Moreover, approval positions all of our jurisdictions to pursue competitive regional, state, and federal funding opportunities more effectively.

For these reasons, I strongly encourage the Council to adopt the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study this evening. Doing so will enable us to continue working together toward the shared goals of safety, livability, and prosperity for all of our residents.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to continuing this important partnership.

Sincerely,
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember, City of San José
From: Jeremy Li
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 9/3 - Item 18 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:57:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
I am Jeremy Li, and I am a rising junior at Monta Vista High School.

As a Monta Vista student, I frequently walked to school, but it often felt unsafe because I had to use crosswalks without stop signs, and even a part of the road lacked sidewalks.

However, I know that a lot of other students in Cupertino also feel just as unsafe walking to school.

Many students in Cupertino like me walk or bike to school, and they often have to use Stevens Creek Boulevard. However, the boulevard’s current design encourages speeding, making a short walk to school unnecessarily risky, while also harming others who are unable to drive.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we need to improve transportation options along the corridor to mitigate congestion and keep our roads safe.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety such as protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks, and improved transit capacity to reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to keeping our residents safe and maintaining strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can have a safer and more sustainable future. A future where students won’t have to worry about simply walking to school, a future where my generation will not face the brunt of climate change.

Thank you
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Support for the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Plan Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:24:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in public comments for Agenda item 18. Acceptance of Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and City Councilmembers, Stevens Creek Blvd provides a major connection between Cupertino and our neighboring cities. It is also an essential path within Cupertino for students to get to school, and workers to get to their jobs. That is why it is important to work with our regional partners to make the Corridor safer and more sustainable for everyone who needs it. Let's make it a place where pedestrians, transit riders, bike commuters, wheelchair riders, and motorists can share the space and arrive at their destination safely.

Please vote YES to affirm that Cupertino will participate in the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Plan.

Respectfully,
Yvonne Thorstenson
a parent, and Cupertino resident
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 18- Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:06:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council:
(Please include the following as public comments for item Number 18 in the Cupertino City Council meeting on 9/3/25.)
I attended all of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study meetings. I think it is important To discuss issues with the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor, but each city must be respectful and not Seek to influence issues along the corridor in other cities.

I don't want there to be Bus Rapid Transit down Stevens Creek Blvd where lanes have to be sacrificed For buses only. There is not enough room or lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. to accommodate this And Cupertino wishes to have a median of Street Trees down the middle of Stevens Creek Blvd Along with other trees for its distinctive Heart of the City. No city should dictate or demand Cupertino get rid of this.

I also would like to see more coordination of the Stevens Creek Blvd with the San Carlos Corridor Reaching to San Jose State in these studies. There seemed to be an over-preoccupation With Diridon Station in San Jose and De Anza College in this study. Diridon Station is not On the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor, but San Jose State is. De Anza is a Community College in Cupertino and San Jose has its own excellent Community Colleges. San Jose City College is an Excellent school which my niece attended as well as Evergreen College. Mission College in Santa Clara has an outstanding Business program as well as computer programming.

San Jose State has an outstanding engineering college as well as outstanding math/ computer Colleges as well as science and business colleges.

This current Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Study should not be trying to involve Foothill Blvd in the Vision of this study. My understanding was this study was to study Stevens Creek Blvd. If there Is going to be another study involving Foothill Blvd and Foothill Expressway, then the city of Los Altos should be consulted. Los Altos was not involved in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study.

Please make sure car traffic is involved in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study. Please make sure no Bus Rapid Transit is installed on Stevens Creek Blvd. as it would cause traffic to Gridlock and sacrifices a whole lane which we don't have to spare on Stevens Creek Blvd, especially in Cupertino. Cupertino's Heart of the City leads by example already.

We also don't know the full fallout of damage if SB 79 is enacted, and we must be diligent to protect What infrastructure we already have.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Calley Wang
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 9/3 Council meeting comments on agenda items 18 and 19 Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:28:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor Chao, Council Members and Staff,
Here are my comments on the following agenda items:
18: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
I urge the council to adopt the Stevens Creek Vision as recommended. The vision plan contains common sense recommendations and best practices for improving safety and attractiveness on suburban streets. As a Cupertino native who travels Stevens Creek by car, bus, foot, and bike and has followed the outreach process from the beginning, I think the vision plan will make the corridor safer, more pleasant and less congested. These will have such a positive impact for seniors, families, and youth, who I often see walking or riding transit on the Cupertino section of Stevens Creek. Morever, the scope of the of the vision should be maintained to include Foothill Boulevard, which this Council initially advocated for to ensure greater funding eligibility for Cupertino's section of Stevens Creek.

The Vision also aligns with Cupertino's General Plan goals of promoting walking and biking, better local and regional transit, and an attractive Heart of the City. As Stevens Creek develops, it will become a better place for residents to walk around and for small businesses to thrive.

A vocal minority has insisted that Cupertino should prioritize increasing car traffic above all else on Stevens Creek. This would give Stevens Creek all the safety, smooth traffic flow, economic potential, and neighborhood character of Lawrence Expressway. It is a major corridor but it is not an expressway. It forms the commercial heart of the city and should be safe and welcoming for all residents of all ages to visit by car, foot, bike, or transit.

Adopting the Vision maintains local control -- it does not cost Cupertino any money or require it to carry out any projects without city approval. It is the best way to secure a future for safe and smooth travel on Stevens Creek for all residents and all visitors. 19: Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters
I support Option 3 from the staff report, which is to maintain a commission with oversight on transportation issues. We are asking Planning Commission to do too much with their limited time and city resources, on top of complex state housing requirements. Meanwhile a separate Mobility Commission with a clarified mandate would have the time and attention needed to focus on transportation issues, especially those impacting our most vulnerable road users.

Remember that many cyclists and pedestrians in Cupertino are students and kids; their perspectives also deserve to be taken into consideration. Additionally, having a separate commission is in line with best practice in other Bay Area cities like Palo Alto and has successfully obtained lots of outside grant funding for transportation improvements in Cupertino.

This is the best choice for maintaining Cupertino's attractive quality of life and the most fiscally responsible choice.

Thank you,
Calley Wang
West Hill Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Robert Benjamin Bolival
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 9/3 - Item 18 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:12:18 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Robert Bolival, and I frequently use public transit to travel to Cupertino. I also live very near Stevens Creek Boulevard and use it on a rather common basis.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current car-centric design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current high width and lack of adequate amenities for bikers and pedestrians encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk—especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users. This is important due to the presence of many schools, senior facilities, and parks near the Stevens Creek area.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

As mentioned prior, Stevens Creek’s high amount of lanes encourage excessive car use and congestion, increasing emissions—which could be reduced by making the street more suitable for walking and transit. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Robert Bolival
From: Jacob Brandis
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 9/3 - Item 18 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:53:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Jacob and I’m a Cupertino commuter.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Jacob Brandis
From: William Yang
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 9/3 - Item 18 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:53:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Will and I’m a Cupertino resident.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Will
From: Jean Bedord
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Agenda Item #18 Stevens Creek Blvd, Sept. 3, Wednesday Written Communications Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 5:34:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Kirsten,
Thanks much!
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cell: 408-966-6174
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 5:16 PM Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]> wrote:

Good evening Jean, we will copy them over to the Sept 3 meeting.

Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Jean Bedord <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 2:40 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item #18 Stevens Creek Blvd, Sept. 3, Wednesday Written Communications CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,
This item was postponed from the July 15, 2023 City Council Meeting. There were 34 emails in the Written Communications for that item. Will these be brought forward to Written Communications for the meeting on Sept. 3? These voices from the public should not be lost due to mismanagement of dais time.

Thank you.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 13
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember
City of San Jose
Council District 1, 18th floor
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose , CA 95113
408) 535- 4901
district1@sanjoseca. gov
www.sjdistrict1. com
July 14, 2025
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RE: Item 13: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Dear Honorable Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers, As you consider the adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, I want to express my strong support for this shared effort between our cities. This study reflects a meaningful collaboration between our Public Works teams and our mutual commitment to shaping a corridor that is safer, more sustainable, and more vibrant for all of our communities.

In San José, we deeply value our partnership with Cupertino and neighboring cities. Our residents and small businesses frequently express their desire to see us working together on regional issues that impact us all—especially around traffic safety, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The Stevens Creek Corridor is a key example of where collaboration can truly make a difference.

Adopting the Vision Study does not obligate any city to specific projects or funding commitments at this time. However, it does position all of us to be more competitive when seeking regional, state, or federal funding for future improvements. It sends a clear message that our cities are united in our vision for this corridor and committed to creating a seamless, multimodal experience that meets the needs of our communities now and into the future.

It’s important that we strengthen our regional ties and continue working together toward solutions that benefit the broader South Bay. I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish when we align around shared goals, and I hope to see the study adopted without modification.

Thank you for your continued partnership. I look forward to the work ahead.

Sincerely,
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember, City of San José
From: Richard Lowenthal
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 10: 17: 51 PM
Mayor Chao and the Cupertino City Council,
Please vote to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. we're hoping that you’ ll join the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and VTA to ensure a cohesive future for this very, very important boulevard in Cupertino. Most of us use Stevens Creek Boulevard every day, and many times because of traffic congestion, we take it to Santa Clara and San Jose, and indeed all the way west to Foothill Boulevard.

It is particularly important for us to adopt the vision all the way up the Heidelberg Quarry, or at least to Foothill Boulevard. Our family uses that segment frequently when the 85/280 transition ramps are all plugged up with traffic. In addition we are concerned about the health and future of the bridge that carries Stevens Creek Boulevard over the creek itself. That bridge is 47 years old and is wearing out and frankly a pedestrian and bike underpass under that bridge when the bridge is ultimately replaced would be spectacular. Since that bridge is considered a County route, Cupertino’ s chances of getting funding assistance for it from the County and VTA will increase if we all join in a vision that includes the area by Blackberry Farm.

Thank you for taking residents thoughts into consideration.

Richard Lowenthal
42 year resident of Cupertino
From: Ishan Khosla
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Please Accept Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study - Include in Public Record Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 10: 30: 22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members,
My name is Ishan Khosla, and I am a student at Cupertino High School who relies on biking to get to school and around town every day.

Stevens Creek is a major corridor in our city, and its safety and accessibility for all citizens, regardless of transportation method, is of utmost importance. Right now, it often feels quite unsafe and disconnected if you are not in a car. This is why we must accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study to make this road safer, more efficient, and better for all of our citizens, including students and families. It's a collaborative effort involving San Jose, Santa Clara, the County, and the VTA, so Cupertino should stay involved as well.

Plus, accepting the study does not commit Cupertino to implementing any projects, but ensures that we have a seat at the table as planning moves forward. It will also place us in an advantageous position to receive county and state- level funding.

Thank you for your leadership and for considering the voices of students and citizens. Please include this email in the public record.

Sincerely, Ishan Khosla
From: Aahaan Jain
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 8:36: 03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Aahaan Jain and I'm a former Cupertino resident who used to (and still do) live close to Stevens Creek Boulevard.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Aahaan Jain
From: Doron Dru
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 12: 41: 42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Doron Drusinsky and I’m a Cupertino resident at 11425 Charsan Lane.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

ALSO: there is no reason Cupertino cannot look like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, with not only FULLY SEPARATED and SAFE bike lanes everywhere, but also separated walking trails that are not adjacent to vehicle exhaust fumes.

Sincerely,
Doron Drusinsky
From: Braeden Webb
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 9:12: 00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Braeden Webb and I’m a Cupertino commuter.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety, reduce traffic, and respect the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Braeden Webb
From: Maddon Nicholas Hoh- Choi
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 – Item 13 – Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 10: 34: 43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Maddon, a former Cupertino student.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is a vital corridor for our city, but is largely unsafe for bikers, pedestrians, and people relying on transit. Speeding traffic puts children, seniors, and people using mobility devices at risk every day.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study recommends proven improvements— like protected bike lanes, safer crosswalks, and pedestrian islands— that will make the corridor safer for everyone without harming traffic flow.

Adopting the study does not commit the city to any projects or spending. It simply opens the door to future grants and regional partnerships that will help Cupertino plan for growth responsibly.

Both the Planning Commission and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission unanimously recommended adopting the study. Please vote to accept it and move Cupertino toward a safer future, especially as the city adds more residents and businesses to the corridor.

Thank you,
Maddon Hoh- Choi ( He/ Him)
University of California, Berkeley | Class of 2027
Haas School of Business
From: Alvin Yang
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public comment for 7/15 Item 13 ( Stevens Creek Corridor Study) Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 8:16: 09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I'm writing today as a 25+ year resident of Cupertino to urge you strongly to approve the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study plan. I've seen Cupertino and the surrounding cities grow in my lifetime and they have outgrown the current design of Stevens Creek. There are simply too many points of interest on Stevens Creek to only prioritize car traffic. Between Downtown San Jose, SJSU, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Main Street, De Anza College, and the soon- to- be- completed Vallco project we simply cannot keep the design as is. The other cities and agencies of this study ( San Jose, Santa Clara city + county, and the VTA) have all already come to this conclusion and are on board to adopt the plan. Cupertino should not continue to drag its feet at this critical juncture.

As it stands now, if you ever travel on Stevens Creek during peak hours you' ll find the road full of traffic and congestion. This is especially apparent at Valley Fair/ Santa Row. By adopting this plan we can alleviate the congestion on Stevens Creek as alternative options such as public transportation will become way more enticing. This will also benefit the Cupertino side of Stevens Creek as Main Street is also a highly desirable location. You may think that since there is already existing bus infrastructure that we do not need to improve it but I would argue that the current bus infrastructure isn't good enough to be a viable alternative for the average citizen. I personally took bus 23 from Cupertino to SJSU when I went to college. I found the bus would get stuck in traffic during rush hour adding an extra 10- 20 minutes to my commute. Furthermore the bus route itself took so long that the overall travel time on just the bus alone was nearly an hour. This was partially alleviated when VTA started rolling out limited stop bus routes but the bus would always get stuck in traffic and stop constantly at all the red lights. One of the short term plans for the Vision Study is to give signal and lane priority to existing buses. This alone would greatly increase the speed of the bus and make it a viable alternative to driving. The plan document estimates a 50% reduction in corridor travel time which is insanely good return on investment. If you' ve ever been stuck queuing for parking at Santa Row you can easily see how the bus becomes a very enticing option.

I recognize that the budget has been on the City Council' s mind since the loss of Apple online sales tax revenue. I would posit to you that implementing this plan is an investment in the future of the city. If Cupertino chooses to adopt the plan you will find that businesses on Stevens Creek will have an increase of customers as it will be easier and more convenient for more people to reach these places. This in turn will boost revenue for the city. It is imperative that the city council acts now while we both still have the capital and have this incredible opportunity. It is very rare to have all these citys and agencies in agreement for such a project.

Passing it up now would be detrimental to any future collaboration on not just Stevens Creek but any other future projects.

In the past Cupertino has led the way on Stevens Creek improvements but by dragging your feet with this study we are at risk of being left behind. I ask that Cupertino take charge once more and approve the Stevens Creek Plan for the future benefit of its citizens and of the South Bay Area.

Regards,
Alvin
From: Cate Crockett
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Stevens Creek Blvd
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 1:50: 21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Cate Crockett and I’m a 30 year resident and Cupertino home owner.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Cate Crockett
From: Joe
To: Public Comments
Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 2:22: 07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

UBJECT: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is and I’m a San Jose resident & Commuter who uses the San Jose Cupertino corridor.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Joe Neil
CTO
Phonix. io
From: Carol Stanek
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Support for the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 12: 52: 39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing today to voice full support of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and urge you to accept the Vision Study. Cupertino needs to look to the future and actively pursue improved transportation routes.

I strongly disagree with the Planning Commission' s recommendation to limit the study to Bubb Road.

This is short sighted and dangerous.

Anyone who travels between Bubb Road and Foothill knows that this section is routinely used as a popular shortcut by motorists to avoid the Hwy 85 to 280 interchange. This is particularly problematic on weekdays in the mornings and afternoons, the same time as parents are taking their children to and from Stevens Creek Elementary School. This is the only route to take children to school! There are times when it is impossible to turn onto Stevens Creek toward Foothill from the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, the pedestrian crossing at the entrance to the Blue Pheasant and Blackberry Farm golf course is another place that is rife with safety issues. Motorists routinely speed down the hill, so much so that Sheriff officers often position themselves here to catch speeders. This should all be included in the Vision Study.

To suggest that the study be limited short of this section is foolish and dangerous. We already know the issues. The Vision study will provide additional data to guide us in our decision making. The other jurisdictions and agencies have agreed that the corridor should be studied to the end. Why wouldn't we want the data too? Let's get to work to study the corridor all the way through to Foothill! Sincerely,
Carol Stanek
Speaking for myself
Note: Please include my comments in the public record.

From: Jian He
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Urging Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 12: 08: 59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members of Cupertino City Council,
As a resident of Cupertino for more than 20 years, with my family living near Stevens Creek Boulevard and my husband relying on his bike for his daily commute, I am writing to strongly urge your immediate acceptance of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. This critical initiative represents a collaborative effort between the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose, along with the County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA), all united in the goal of comprehensively improving Stevens Creek Boulevard. The future of this corridor directly impacts my family and many others in our community, making your decision on this matter incredibly important.

Cupertino has already demonstrated its commitment to this vital project. In July 2019, our City Council adopted a resolution specifically affirming Cupertino' s support. This vision study is the culmination of extensive multi- year input from various stakeholders, including the broader public, a dedicated Steering Committee composed of elected leaders from all three cities, and a Community Advisory Group of respected community leaders. Such a thorough and inclusive process ensures that the recommendations reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of our shared community.

It is imperative to note that the City Councils of San Jose and Santa Clara, the County, and the VTA have already voted to accept the results of the Vision Study. Cupertino currently stands as the only major participant that has yet to formally accept these results. This is crucial because accepting the study keeps the City of Cupertino actively engaged with Santa Clara, San Jose, the County, and VTA in deciding the future of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Now, Cupertino must do so as well to maintain its vital role in this collaborative effort.

It's important to emphasize that the Vision Study does not mandate any specific changes or projects. Instead, it serves as a foundational document, laying out a comprehensive vision for the corridor' s future. Any specific projects that emerge from this vision will require separate and individual approval processes, ensuring that Cupertino retains full control over local implementation.

Furthermore, unanimous acceptance of the study by all participating cities, the County, and VTA will significantly elevate the priority of specific projects for state and county grant funding. This will directly benefit Cupertino by increasing our chances of securing the necessary resources to realize these improvements.

Finally, I must strongly advocate that the corridor vision study encompass all of Stevens Creek Boulevard, extending all the way to Foothill Boulevard, and not terminate at Bubb Road as recommended by the Planning Commission. All other participating cities, the County, and the VTA recognize the paramount importance of improving this vital corridor from end to end. An inclusive approach ensures a cohesive and effective strategy for the entire length of Stevens Creek Boulevard, benefiting all residents and commuters.

By accepting the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, the Cupertino City Council will reaffirm its commitment to inter- agency cooperation, demonstrate its dedication to thoughtful urban planning, and unlock significant opportunities for future funding and improvement within our city.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Jian He, Cupertino Resident
Many blessings to you all,
all things work together for good..." --- Romans 8:28
From: Winnifred Homer- Smith
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Vision Study for Stevens Creek Corridor
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 7:47: 29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support and enthusiasm for the Vision Study for the Stevens Creek Corridor. It is very valuable to give all the cities involved this opportunity to make significant improvements in this ever- so-important corridor that we all use so frequently. It is also very important that it include the entire length of the corridor, as was recommended by the team that produced the Vision.

It is my understanding that all the other cities involved have already approved it. It was brought into existence after many years of preparations participated in by many different interest groups. If unanimously approved, it will most likely bring important grant funding.

While it does not specify projects, it clearly opens an opportunity to bring this vital corridor into the present, and to prepare it well for our future.

I certainly hope we - our city - will continue to support this project to continue all that has been achieved already.

Sincerely,
Winnifred Homer- Smith
23300 Via Esplendor, V58
Cupertino, 95014
From: Neil Park- McClintick
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Yes on Item 13—Public Comment
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 1:58: 37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Neil Park- McClintick and I lived in Cupertino for over 15 years, and my family is still lives there. I also do not own a car and rely on VTA and my bicycle to go to work, get groceries, receive healthcare treatments, meet friends+family, volunteer, and to do basically everything in life, usually on a daily basis.

Cupertino and Silicon Valley are fabled throughout the world—many of my relatives in Korea imagine grand cities, rich in amenities, nice facilities, and world class infrastructure. Of course, when people actually come here, they instead witness office parks, surrounded by sprawling suburbs, and limited pedestrian and foot traffic due to car dominance. For all of the massive wealth we have here, our communities are deeply underwhelmed by fault in many cases of those who came before us, before we knew we'd become a epicenter for jobs, housing, and schools. In many ways, Cupertino is actually better planned than much of the South Bay, including our portion of the corridor, but nonetheless our roads, transit systems, bikeways, and major corridors are all connected across cities, counties, agencies, and so on. We have an opportunity and duty to play a key role, as a leader in our region, to reverse the poor decisions of the past—please accept this study, so we can make our community:
1) Better for Bus Users, Pedestrians, and Cyclists: Here is a simple visual of how important a well operated, efficient bus system can be. Often the narrative is focused on how a bus is empty.

First, the 23 and 523 (the corridor lines) are two of the most used bus lines in the entire VTA network. But also, we perpetually create a self fulfilling prophecy when we purposely hinder a bus's success under the suspicion that it's underutilized. If the bus takes longer to get to your destination, you will take active steps to use the bus less or not at all, and therefore ridership declines. People need to see the government and its respective services run well and efficiently before they see those as competitive alternatives.
images. jpeg

2. Good for Drivers: An underrated reality of having a more shared, safer corridor is that we could also create a better experience for drivers as well. If we can get more people to use the bus, we can create a less congested corridor, especially during prime time traffic and closer to Santana Row/ VF, and drivers will have to sit in traffic less. Better cyclist and walking planning also means that drivers are less likely to accidentally come into contact with active transportation, reducing fatalities, crashes and accidents ( which lead to more congestion and road closures), and making driving far less stressful.

3. Good for Workers and Students, and Elderly: Cupertino, just like any community in the bay area, is highly dependent on lower-waged workers, who are often Latino (less than 5% of the city), and whose families cannot afford to live in the high rent/purchase homes of our city. In many cases, they rely on the bus to get to and from work, and are the lifeblood of our city—fueling the few retail stores we frequent, the facilities we operate, the roads we operate, the coffee shops and bakeries we eat at, and the grocery stores we depend on. Catch the bus during commuting hours, and you will see these workers, riding the bus to and from work, often sitting in gridlock traffic because of our poor corridor design. Similarly, students, especially De Anza students, ride the 23 and 523 at extremely high volumes, aided by their smart- pass deal that FHDA has with VTA, which allows for free bus use. These workers and students cannot afford a car, especially in this economy—they are living paycheck to paycheck or stretching their financial aid to the absolute last dollar. Finally, if you regularly ride this corridor, you will frequently see elderly who rely on the bus to be able to freely live their lives, many of whom are Asian-American, and who otherwise would be homebound or highly dependent on their families to have freedom.

This corridor study will not undo decades upon decades of failed planning, but this is a necessary step to bring the vibrancy, safety, and convenience that Cupertino and Silicon Valley deserves.

This DOES NOT preclude future expansions of transit or alternative transportation, but it's a statement and set of policy recommendations that will steer us away from dying strip malls, communities oriented around auto dealerships, unnecessary traffic, and tangibly improve a lot of people's lives.

Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
From: Richard Lowenthal
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 10: 17: 51 PM
Mayor Chao and the Cupertino City Council,
Please vote to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. we're hoping that you’ ll join the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and VTA to ensure a cohesive future for this very, very important boulevard in Cupertino. Most of us use Stevens Creek Boulevard every day, and many times because of traffic congestion, we take it to Santa Clara and San Jose, and indeed all the way west to Foothill Boulevard.

Thank you for taking residents thoughts into consideration.

Dear City Council Members,
My name is Ishan Khosla, and I am a student at Cupertino High School who relies on biking to get to school and around town every day.

Thank you for your leadership and for considering the voices of students and citizens. Please include this email in the public record.

Sincerely, Ishan Khosla
From: Aahaan Jain
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 8: 36: 03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Aahaan Jain and I'm a former Cupertino resident who used to (and still do) live close to Stevens Creek Boulevard.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Aahaan Jain
From: Doron Dru
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 12: 41: 42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Doron Drusinsky and I’m a Cupertino resident at 11425 Charsan Lane.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Doron Drusinsky
From: Braeden Webb
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 9: 12: 00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Braeden Webb and I’m a Cupertino commuter.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Braeden Webb
From: Maddon Nicholas Hoh- Choi
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 – Item 13 – Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 10: 34: 43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Maddon, a former Cupertino student.

Adopting the study does not commit the city to any projects or spending. It simply opens the door to future grants and regional partnerships that will help Cupertino plan for growth responsibly.

Thank you,
Maddon Hoh- Choi ( He/Him)
University of California, Berkeley | Class of 2027
Haas School of Business
From: Alvin Yang
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public comment for 7/ 15 Item 13 ( Stevens Creek Corridor Study) Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 8: 16: 09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
I'm writing today as a 25+ year resident of Cupertino to urge you strongly to approve the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study plan. I've seen Cupertino and the surrounding cities grow in my lifetime and they have outgrown the current design of Stevens Creek. There are simply too many points of interest on Stevens Creek to only prioritize car traffic. Between Downtown San Jose, SJSU, Valley Fair, Santana Row, Main Street, De Anza College, and the soon- to-be-completed Vallco project we simply cannot keep the design as is. The other cities and agencies of this study ( San Jose, Santa Clara city + county, and the VTA) have all already come to this conclusion and are on board to adopt the plan. Cupertino should not continue to drag its feet at this critical juncture.

As it stands now, if you ever travel on Stevens Creek during peak hours you'll find the road full of traffic and congestion. This is especially apparent at Valley Fair/Santa Row. By adopting this plan we can alleviate the congestion on Stevens Creek as alternative options such as public transportation will become way more enticing. This will also benefit the Cupertino side of Stevens Creek as Main Street is also a highly desirable location. You may think that since there is already existing bus infrastructure that we do not need to improve it but I would argue that the current bus infrastructure isn't good enough to be a viable alternative for the average citizen. I personally took bus 23 from Cupertino to SJSU when I went to college. I found the bus would get stuck in traffic during rush hour adding an extra 10-20 minutes to my commute. Furthermore the bus route itself took so long that the overall travel time on just the bus alone was nearly an hour. This was partially alleviated when VTA started rolling out limited stop bus routes but the bus would always get stuck in traffic and stop constantly at all the red lights. One of the short term plans for the Vision Study is to give signal and lane priority to existing buses. This alone would greatly increase the speed of the bus and make it a viable alternative to driving. The plan document estimates a 50% reduction in corridor travel time which is insanely good return on investment. If you've ever been stuck queuing for parking at Santa Row you can easily see how the bus becomes a very enticing option.

Passing it up now would be detrimental to any future collaboration on not just Stevens Creek but any other future projects.

Regards,
Alvin
From: Cate Crockett
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Stevens Creek Blvd
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 1: 50: 21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Cate Crockett and I’m a 30 year resident and Cupertino home owner.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Cate Crockett
From: Joe
To: Public Comments
Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 2: 22: 07 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

I strongly disagree with the Planning Commission' s recommendation to limit the study to Bubb Road.

This is short sighted and dangerous.

Cupertino has already demonstrated its commitment to this vital project. In July 2019, our City Council adopted a resolution specifically affirming Cupertino' s support. This vision study is the culmination of extensive multi-year input from various stakeholders, including the broader public, a dedicated Steering Committee composed of elected leaders from all three cities, and a Community Advisory Group of respected community leaders. Such a thorough and inclusive process ensures that the recommendations reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of our shared community.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Jian He, Cupertino Resident
Many blessings to you all,
all things work together for good..." --- Romans 8:28
From: Winnifred Homer- Smith
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Vision Study for Stevens Creek Corridor
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 7: 47: 29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support and enthusiasm for the Vision Study for the Stevens Creek Corridor. It is very valuable to give all the cities involved this opportunity to make significant improvements in this ever-so-important corridor that we all use so frequently. It is also very important that it include the entire length of the corridor, as was recommended by the team that produced the Vision.

While it does not specify projects, it clearly opens an opportunity to bring this vital corridor into the present, and to prepare it well for our future.

I certainly hope we - our city - will continue to support this project to continue all that has been achieved already.

Sincerely,
Winnifred Homer- Smith
23300 Via Esplendor, V58
Cupertino, 95014
From: Neil Park- McClintick
To: Public Comments; City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Yes on Item 13—Public Comment
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 1: 58: 37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Neil Park-McClintick and I lived in Cupertino for over 15 years, and my family is still lives there. I also do not own a car and rely on VTA and my bicycle to go to work, get groceries, receive healthcare treatments, meet friends+family, volunteer, and to do basically everything in life, usually on a daily basis.

2. Good for Drivers: An underrated reality of having a more shared, safer corridor is that we could also create a better experience for drivers as well. If we can get more people to use the bus, we can create a less congested corridor, especially during prime time traffic and closer to Santana Row/VF, and drivers will have to sit in traffic less. Better cyclist and walking planning also means that drivers are less likely to accidentally come into contact with active transportation, reducing fatalities, crashes and accidents (which lead to more congestion and road closures), and making driving far less stressful.

3. Good for Workers and Students, and Elderly: Cupertino, just like any community in the bay area, is highly dependent on lower-waged workers, who are often Latino (less than 5% of the city), and whose families cannot afford to live in the high rent/purchase homes of our city. In many cases, they rely on the bus to get to and from work, and are the lifeblood of our city—fueling the few retail stores we frequent, the facilities we operate, the roads we operate, the coffee shops and bakeries we eat at, and the grocery stores we depend on. Catch the bus during commuting hours, and you will see these workers, riding the bus to and from work, often sitting in gridlock traffic because of our poor corridor design. Similarly, students, especially De Anza students, ride the 23 and 523 at extremely high volumes, aided by their smart-pass deal that FHDA has with VTA, which allows for free bus use. These workers and students cannot afford a car, especially in this economy—they are living paycheck to paycheck or stretching their financial aid to the absolute last dollar. Finally, if you regularly ride this corridor, you will frequently see elderly who rely on the bus to be able to freely live their lives, many of whom are Asian-American, and who otherwise would be homebound or highly dependent on their families to have freedom.

This corridor study will not undo decades upon decades of failed planning, but this is a necessary step to bring the vibrancy, safety, and convenience that Cupertino and Silicon Valley deserves.

Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: 2025- 07- 15 CC Agenda Item 13 Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1: 57: 39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 13 Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager:

My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.

I add my name to those who have written or will speak tonight to support the recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 25-068 accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directing City staff to work through the multi jurisdictional working group and Steering Committee to further assess the Study’ s recommendations and opportunities for implementation.

It is critical that regional solutions are found for transportation. Cupertino has been a member of this regional effort since the City Council adopted a resolution in July 2019 affirming Cupertino’ s support for this project. By voting tonight for this phase of the project the Council will show that Cupertino is committed to finding regional solutions, including this corridor’ s shape.

Money is always a key topic in projects of this size. This regionally approved corridor will be a very high priority for state and county grants.

Since the Vision Study includes the segment from Bubb to Foothill, I highly recommend that the City Council include that segment in its final vote. Various segments will be voted on separately, so final decisions can be fully thought out between now and completion.

I highly support the Council’ s adoption of Resolution No. 25-068. Thank you, in advance, for keeping this regional project momentum moving forward.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
From: Aaryan Doshi
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Accept Stevens Creek Corridor Study
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9: 41: 51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmembers,
I hope you're doing well!
My name is Aaryan, a recent graduate of Monta Vista and frequent biker across Stevens Creek Boulevard.

I strongly urge you to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Study for the following three reasons:

This will be a joint project to support Stevens Creek Blvd across multiple cities Cupertino is the only city right now that has not accepted the study. There is no need for us to be an outlier on this matter --- there is a reason it has been so popular elsewhere Our funding chances will increase tremendously and we can have full coverage to Foothill Boulevard
Please keep these at the back of your mind when you vote today.

We can keep our bikers safe.

We got this :)
Sincerely,
Aaryan
From: Sharlene Liu
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: accept Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3: 07: 49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include my email in the public record).

Dear Cupertino Council,
I ask you to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study at tonight' s council meeting.

Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) is an important cross- county route and we need to make it safe for all modes of transportation. By accepting the study, Cupertino will continue to be involved in its planning. The study would be greatly weakened if the Cupertino segment of SCB were left out, making it unsafe for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. After several years of involvement, Cupertino would be wasting a lot of effort if you don't accept the study now.

I personally bike on SCB, but I try to avoid it by using parallel streets because of the unprotected nature of the bike lanes on SCB. This is inconvenient and lengthens my commute, discouraging me from biking to my destinations along SCB. Please make SCB safe all the way to Foothill Blvd on the west. We need connectivity.

Thank you,
Sharlene Liu
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office Subject: Accept the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 9: 41: 28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and council members, I am on the Planning Commission, but I am writing this email as a resident of this city. Please include it in the public record.

I am writing today to urge you to accept the SCB Corridor Vision Study. Over the past few years, multiple Cupertino councilmembers of different political views have sat on the Steering Committee and influenced the direction of the Vision Study. It is the result of years of input from them combined with listening to residents in three cities, community leaders, and elected leaders. The Bike Ped Commission and Planning Commission have also voted to recommend that the City Council accept the Vision Study.

Accepting the Vision Study means that the City of Cupertino continues to be " in the room where it happens" when decisions are made about the future of this corridor. Cupertino doesn' t exist in a vacuum. Traffic, transit, pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, medians, and sidewalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Santa Clara and San Jose impact Cupertino residents too. Cupertino needs to make sure it has a seat at the table when the corridor in its entirety is being planned.

Accepting the Vision Study does not lock Cupertino into any specific projects, it only sets out a vision for the corridor. How we realize that vision can be very tailored to what works for us as a city.

While the Planning Commission recommended that the Vision Study' s scope end at Bubb Rd, I urge the council to include the entirety of the corridor all the way to Foothill Blvd. The stretch from Bubb to Foothill is very busy with high speed car traffic and hundreds of children crossing it every day to get to Stevens Creek Elementary and Monta Vista High School. It's often used as a shortcut by drivers looking to avoid congested freeways and sees daily significant safety issues. It's a critical length and it must be included in the scope of the Vision Study.

Regards,
Seema Lindskog
Cupertino resident
You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.

From: J Shearin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: City Council July 15, 2025 | Accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 4: 47: 10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include the following in the public record.

Dear Mayor Chao and City Council:

I ask you today to approve the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. As the Cupertino City Council affirmed in 2019, this is a key corridor through our city which needs careful planning and improvement to meet the needs of our residents for the next 50 years. This study lays out that vision, while not stating any specific changes for Cupertino. All potential plans would have to be approved by the City Council. There’ s not a downside for our city to approving this vision, but there is an upside: we maintain our voice in what will happen to Stevens Creek Boulevard.

This study has had extensive community input over several years, both diving deep on issues and hearing from a wide variety of residents. Cupertino has had an equal voice in the results.

By approving this study, Cupertino will have a voice even beyond its borders in what happens next. This is crucial as we know that our South Bay issues such as heavy traffic do not restrict themselves by stopping at a city limit. Let’ s not throw that away voice.

Other cities, VTA, and the county have all approved this study. They want to keep their constituent’ s interests represented. The Planning Commission and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission have encouraged approving it, too.

One note is that this study should not stop at Bubb Road, as a few Planning Commissioners who live on the west side) asked for. We are one city, and the west side should not be above consideration for inclusion just as it should be for all city decisions, whether zoning, transportation, or other large- scale planning. Stevens Creek Boulevard extends to Foothill, and the vision should, too.

Thank you for considering my input on this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From: louise saadati
To: Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Fwd: Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 12: 53: 48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: louise saadati < lwsaadati@gmail. com>
Date: July 15, 2025 at 1:38:21 AM PDT
To: citycouncil@cupertino. gov, City Clerk < cityclerk@cupertino. gov> Subject: Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and City
Council Members:

Please include the following in the public record:

Please vote yes on the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision
Study at the City Council Meeting of 7/15/26.

This is a joint project by Santa Clara, Cupertino, San
Jose, VTA and the County to study and make
recommendations for the safety along the Stevens
Creek Boulevard. Cupertino needs to approve this to
be included in the conversation and decisions made
by these cities and the County. This is to improve the
safety for all of us whether on transit, driving , biking or walking.

The recommendations need to go end to end
including all the way to Foothill Blvd where all the
residents travel to and deserve optimal safety.

Cupertino is the last city to give their approval to this vision. Cupertino’s approval of the results of the
Vision Study will make it easier for the cities and
entities to receive grant approvals to improve that
corridor.

Please vote yes to show that you believe in making
Stevens Creek Corridor a safe and enjoyable corridor
for us all to enjoy.

Thank you for supporting this by voting yes.

Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo. com
Subject: Item 13- Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9: 52: 04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include the following as comments for Item Number 13 in the City Council Agenda For July 15, 2025).

Dear City Council Council:

I attended the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Studies meetings and activities in different cities for the last few years. This included a bus tour from Diridon Station and many different types of meetings and activities in San Jose, Santa Clara and Cupertino.

The meetings were well attended and there was much discussion about different aspects of the Corridor.

I don't think it is a good idea to have BRT or Bus Rapid Transit down Stevens Creek Blvd. It would not be a good idea to close one lane on each side of Stevens Creek Blvd for a Fixed Bus Rapid Transit Or a dedicated bus line as there is already gridlock in some areas of Stevens Creek Blvd. There is simply no room to have any lanes closed on Stevens Creek Blvd. Traffic flow demands having full Access of all lanes of traffic, especially in the Cupertino area.

There is already a bus line on Stevens Creek Blvd. in the form of Bus 23 and 523. These buses do A good job of moving passengers up and down the corridor and they seem to operate as well As bus lines in other cities, especially the Santa Cruz area. There is no reason to shut down one Lane of Stevens Creek Blvd. for Bus Rapid Transit.

Ithink the corridor study should include the part of Stevens Creek Blvd/San Carlos that goes Toward San Jose State University.

I don't think the Corridor Study should try to include the area of Cupertino where Stevens Creek Blvd. connects with Foothill Blvd. This area is far off the scope of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study and it is too deep into Cupertino where Stevens Creek Blvd. narrows and gets into a highly Rural area. Los Altos was never consulted or involved in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study at all. We also never studied the Downtown San Jose areas where San Carlos runs into the San Jose Downtown and San Jose State. The boundaries of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study did not involve these adjacent areas of Foothill Blvd and San Jose State so it would be better To concentrate on the Corridor Proper that was indeed studied.

It is important to make sure car traffic is not impeded on Stevens Creek Blvd. It is a major source of Transportation and keeping all lanes open on Stevens Creek Blvd. will keep traffic flowing smoothly.

I am also extremely concerned about the potential implications if SB 79 (Senator Wiener) passes In 2025. This bill is not subject to CEQA, and there may be the potential that traffic in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor will go to gridlock if this bill is implemented, especially since I believe The main intent of SB 79 is to run high voltage transmission lines for AI and Data Centers down Transit and bus lines of which Stevens Creek Blvd. is one.

Please make sure Bus Rapid Transit is not installed on Stevens Creek Blvd on the Stevens Creek Corridor And especially not in Cupertino. Do not let lanes be closed on Stevens Creek Blvd. for bus only Service. Cupertino has its Heart of the City which is very important to the City and many people have worked countless hours to maintain it.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Hoai- An Truong
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11: 21: 36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am Hoai- An Truong, with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley for a livable climate for all children.

As a lifelong transit rider, I urge you to fully support the “ Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study”.

The following statistics probably come from VTA a few years ago: During the pandemic, 80% of riders were transit- dependent. Here in the county, people of color made up 80% of VTA riders. 50% of riders were lowincome. Nearly a third of all transit riders were essential workers.

Make it easier and FASTER for low- income folks and all transit riders to get to work. We need improvements to public transit to support all these populations and more.

We desperately need Bus- Only Lanes. We need to fund signal preemption for public transit post- haste to make public transit faster.

BOTH will help speed up travel from San Jose to Cupertino. a major benefit not only to Cupertino, but to getting around the whole county.

Additionally, in the Bay Area, the fastest- growing demographic is people aged 65 and older.

We need safer street crossings for everyone crossing the street.

We need a LOT more protected bike lanes for safety and to encourage more biking for improved health, reduced stress, and getting more of us out of our cars.

We need lots more trees to help cool the city, and make getting around without a car easier.

All of these things also help us reach the city’s climate goals.

Increased foot traffic also benefits local businesses as in this FANTASTIC TED Talk.

TED Talk: Janette Sadik-Khan: New York's streets? Not so mean any more
https:// www.youtube. com/watch?v=LujWrkYsl64& t=1s
I urge you to make these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Hoai- An Truong
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
San Jose resident
Sent by carrier pigeon
350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm ***
350ppm ***
ALL HANDS ON DECK!
Climate Action: Do it for everyone you LOVE!
Food as Climate Action: Changing how we eat, how we farm, and reducing food waste are some of the FASTEST and easiest ways to REVERSE climate change.

WeCanSolveThis ( playlist - fun & interesting videos!):

The diet that helps fight climate change and more
Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.

A climate solution full of hope!
Support statewide and local/ regional public banks that reinvest profits in the public interest. This can include pandemic relief & recovery, AND climate solutions. And it's a way to divest our public institutions from fossil fuel investments!
350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm ***
350ppm ***
From: Jacob Brandis
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11: 12: 33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Jacob Brandis and I’m a Cupertino commuter.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Jacob Brandis
From: Ashwin Venugopal
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11: 03: 22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Ashwin Venugopal and I’m a Cupertino student.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Ashwin Venugopal
student email provided for educational purposes by Fremont Union HSD From: radhika
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10: 58: 41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is radhika and I’m a Cupertino student!
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’ s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’ t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
radhika
From: Hazel
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10: 54: 33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Hazel Harrison and I’m a Cupertino resident.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Hazel Harrison
From: Shaurya Arora
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10: 51: 25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Shaurya Arora and I’m a Cupertino resident and business owner Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’ s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’ t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Shaurya Arora
From: Mary Williams
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9: 12: 20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Mary Williams and I’m a long time Cupertino bike commuter.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Mary Williams
From: Daniel Huynh
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7: 29: 43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Daniel Huynh. From my experiences as someone who lives by Stevens Creek Boulevard, I can tell it's not only Cupertino' s most vital corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but also a gateway connecting it with other major cities and neighborhoods in the county allowing for people from all over the county to visit, work, study, do business, etc in Cupertino enriching all of us.

But sadly the current design of the corridor isn’ t up to this awesome task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users with Stevens Creek Blvd and its immediate area is home to many schools, childcare facilities, senior centers, and parks.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It will ignificantly improve safety for car drivers, bus riders, and people on bike, foot, or wheelchair without affecting traffic flow. These include high visibility crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian crossing islands.

It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely, Daniel Huynh
From: Phillip Hines
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 11: 51: 27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor & Council,
My name is Phil Hines, and I am a frequent commuter within Cupertino. I have many friends and a church community in the area, and would love to see improvements made to the safety of all residents in the city.

I urge the council to approve The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan, which includes sensible and data- proven methods to reduce traffic and improve safety at this key corridor. Stevens Creek Blvd is a key part of many folks' commutes, and improving the safety and long-term sustainability of the corridor is a must. And as there are plans to further improve and develop Stevens Creek, this kind of long-term thinking is paramount.

I hope the council recognizes the merits of the plan, as many others in the area -- like the county, San Jose city, and the VTA have. Please vote in favor of the plan, which provides the city a wealth of opportunities to stay committed to safe streets and strong relationships with your neighboring cities.

Thank you,
Phil
From: Alex Richardson
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 8: 28: 57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Alex and I’m a Cupertino resident.

I've lived here almost my whole life. Cupertino is a beautiful place and I want to enjoy it through biking and walking. Unfortunately, I don't feel safe when I do. I try to bike 11 miles to work as much as I can but hate that cars are passing me at twice the speed less than a foot away. It makes me want to stop for good.

I drive as much as the next person and want to keep being able to, and am not worried about that as this plan will not affect traffic flow. What this plan will do is look into options that make other forms of transport more realistic and will help with our sense of community and sustainability.

Whenever I walk around Stevens Creek, I always feel a little unsafe and isolated on an empty sidewalk with a massive road next to me. Crossing can be a harrowing experience, rushing to get to the far side in the 30 seconds the light allows, all while hoping no cars decide to pull a fast right turn. Through this plan, if we are able to find a way to make it more friendly to pedestrians, I think it would be amazing to be able to bike and walk around the area comfortably and run into friends and acquaintances.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’ s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’ t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users. Changing this street could also play a major role in better connecting our city centers such as Main Street and the Cupertino Library to the rest of the city, further enhancing our city's community.

The current design is deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
whether I'd want that to be in Cupertino or not. My biggest challenge living here has been the lack of community and accessibility for shorter commutes due to our current infrastructure.

Plans like this are what give me hope for our city's future and make me excited to see how Cupertino can continue to lead the way in building a sustainable future.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Alex Richardson
From: CrystaLuna Luminescent
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 6: 20: 04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Savita Nataraj and I regularly drive through Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is the city’ s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’ t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, please ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of the city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming the commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Savita Nataraj
Blessings on your night and day,
Savita N.

From: Vishnu Bhat
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/ 15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11: 23: 30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Vishnu and I’m a Cupertino resident.

The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.

The Stevens Creek Vision Study’ s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.

Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.

Sincerely,
Vishnu Bhat
From: louise saadati
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1: 38: 31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and City Council
Members:

Please include the following in the public record:

Please vote yes on the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study at the City Council Meeting of 7/15/26.

This is a joint project by Santa Clara, Cupertino, San Jose, VTA and the County to study and make recommendations for the safety along the Stevens Creek Boulevard. Cupertino needs to approve this to be included in the conversation and decisions made by these cities and the County. This is to improve the safety for all of us whether on transit, driving , biking or walking.

The recommendations need to go end to end including all the way to Foothill Blvd where all the residents travel to and deserve optimal safety.

Cupertino is the last city to give their approval to this vision.

Cupertino’s approval of the results of the Vision Study will make it easier for the cities and entities to receive grant approvals to improve that corridor.

Please vote yes to show that you believe in making Stevens Creek Corridor a safe and enjoyable corridor for us all to enjoy.

Thank you for supporting this by voting yes.

Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kelly Cox
To: Public Comments; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore
Cc: Lisa Gillmor; Manager
Subject: Steven’ s Creek Study Public Comment
Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 6: 27: 20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers, Tomorrow, Cupertino City Council will be voting on the adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. This project is a testament to the collaboration between the Public Works departments of our cities and our joint commitment to a safe, sustainable, and economically productive corridor that we can all be proud of. Accepting this study will enable our cities to move forward in a unified manner to transform the corridor in accordance with the will of our communities who have repeatedly made their voices heard in favor of such an effort.

We in Santa Clara value our relationship with our neighbors and partners, and hope to strengthen our collaboration in key areas such as traffic safety, economic development, and sustainability. I know our residents and small businesses share that sentiment, and we have heard time and time again that they are excited for us to collaborate on such an important corridor.

While the adoption of the study does not commit us or our partners to implementing any specific projects or ongoing financial obligations, it will make our joint efforts and joint projects significantly more competitive for grants. Should we decide to advance a project on the corridor, we can count on the Vision Study to show our regional, state, and federal partners that we are committed to a safe and seamless experience on the corridor for all.

In such uncertain times, I am grateful that we are working to preserve and strengthen our ties. Our efforts to improve safety, sustainability, congestion, and economic productivity will only be furthered by our partnership.

I look forward to our continued collaboration and I hope that the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study can be adopted without alteration.

Sincerely,
Kelly Cox, Santa Clara Vice Mayor
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Glenn Fishler
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager" s Office
Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Acceptance on July 15, 2025 Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 9: 31: 29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
Please include this message in the public record.

I am writing to encourage your unanimous approval to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Study during the City Council meeting on July 15, 2025. This is a joint project intended to improve the Stevens Creek Corridor from end to end. The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, plus Santa Clara County and VTA have already accepted the Vision Study; now it’s Cupertino’s turn to follow suit so we may be included in this important process.

Why is it important for Cupertino to accept the Vision Study? 1) Cupertino needs to accept the Vision Study to be part of the go-forward decision making on the corridor, because traffic and transit do not stop at our city borders.

What happens in Santa Clara and San Jose affects Cupertino as well, so it's important for us to have a say.
2) Unanimous acceptance by the three cities involved, plus the county, and VTA means future projects are more likely to receive priority for state and county grant funding.
3) The Vision Study has involved a multi-stakeholder process. Recommendations were developed after receiving years of input by the broader public, a Steering Committee made up of elected leaders from all three cities, and a Community Advisory Group made up of community leaders from all three cities. 4) The Study does not mandate any specific changes to the Corridor. Rather, it lays out a vision. Any specific projects will need to be approved separately and individually. So, Cupertino’ s specific interests will be heard as the vision moves forward.
5) The vision should include the entire length of Stevens Creek Blvd. to Foothill Blvd. It should not stop at Bubb Road, as recommended by the Cupertino Planning Commission. The other cities, the County, and the VTA recognize the importance of improving the corridor from end to end. Cupertino should follow suit.

Thank you for your support on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Glenn Fishler
Cupertino Resident since 1997
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item 13 Written Communications
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1: 17: 46 PM
Attachments: 2023- 101- Report. pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please provide this email and the attached State Auditor Report regarding VTA for Written Communications Item 13:

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight” June 2024
State Auditor REPORT 2023 101
https:// www.auditor. ca.gov/ reports/ 2023- 101/
A key point in the report is that there has been a lack of cost-benefit analyses conducted by VTA.

Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
KMoore@cupertino. gov
408) 777-1389
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority
Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its
Project Management and Financial Oversight
June 2024
REPORT 2023 101
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Communications Office at 916.445.0255 This report is also available online at www. auditor. ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento | CA | 95814

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
916.445.0255 | TTY 916.445.0033

1.800.952.5665
For complaints of state employee misconduct,
contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline:

Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at auditor. ca.gov 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916. 445. 0255 | 916. 327. 0019 fax | www. auditor. ca. gov Mike Tilden Chief Deputy
Grant Parks State Auditor
June 11, 2024
2023 101
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office conducted an audit of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding theagency’s governance structure, project planning and management, financial viability, and fiscal oversight. VTA is a special district that provides transit services throughout Santa Clara County (county). The agency is governed by a Board of Directors board) consisting of 12 directors who each represent various jurisdictions within the county.

VTA is responsible for planning and delivering improvements to county transit systems or transportation infrastructure. However, the agency needs to strengthen its planning and oversight of such capital projects. For example, when VTA estimates the costs of capital projects, it does not always estimate thecosttooperate and maintain theproject. Also, VTA’s staff do not provide regular updates to the board about variances from the cost estimates it develops before the construction of a project. For example, the construction cost of one project we reviewed increased by about 24 percent from the start of construction. Without regular information about cost increases such as this one, the board has diminished insight into capital project performance.

The processes for appointing VTA’ s directors are not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors with experience in transportation. For example, one group of cities in the county does not meet publicly when it decides who to appoint as its director. Once appointed, VTA’s directors have briefer tenures than those of peer transit agencies, and this is due, in part, to the shorter term lengths that state law establishes for VTA directors compared to the term lengths of other agencies’ directors. As a result, VTA’s board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the boards of peer agencies.

Finally, VTA is ingood financial condition but would benefit from adopting additional fiscal oversight practices. More than 60 percent of VTA’s annual revenue comes from sales taxes, which are a time limited and uncertain source of revenue. However, VTA has not determined how it will replace this revenue once some ofthe measures authorizing these taxes begin expiring in 2036. Additionally, VTA’s staff do not report to the board about financial performance metrics, such as the cost per passenger trip, which is information that could assist the board in overseeing VTA’s performance.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor
Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report
ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
APTA American Public Transportation Association
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
CalPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement System
CapMetro Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFO Chief Financial Officer
EBRC Eastridge to BART Regional Connector
FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GFOA Government Finance Officers Association
LA Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OPEB Other post- employment benefits
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit District
SCIP Strategic Capital Investment Plan
SSTPO Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TriMet Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
iv CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Contents
Summary 1
Introduction 3
Chapter 1
VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight of Capital Projects and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes 9 Recommendations 22
Chapter 2
Legislative Changes Could Increase the Transparency and Effectiveness of VTA’ s Board 23
Recommendations 36
Chapter 3
VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize Its Financial Health and Strategic Direction 37
Recommendations 55
Other Areas We Reviewed 57
Appendix A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Our Prior Audit Recommendations 61 Appendix B
Scope and Methodology 63
Response to the Audit
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 67
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 77
vCALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
vi CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Summary
Results in Brief
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) is a special district responsible for ensuring that Santa Clara County’ s (county) transit and transportation needs are met. VTA provides transit services— including light rail and bus service—and traffic congestion management services throughout the county. A 12 member board of directors ( board) governs VTA and sets VTA policy. Board directors are appointed by local elected officials from the city of San José, from the county, and from groups of smaller cities within the county. The head of VTA’ s Administrative Branch is the Chief Executive Officer ( CEO), who oversees and manages all facets of the organization under policy direction from the board. This audit report concludes the following:

VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight of Capital Projects and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes
VTA addressed individual changes to its capital projects’ costs and schedules in accordance with its procedures. However, VTA’s cost estimates are neither comprehensive nor fully documented. VTA staff also do not regularly report to the board variances in cost or schedule in VTA’s capital projects, leaving the board unaware of important details about these projects and diminishing the board’s oversight of capital projects.

Legislative Changes Could Increase theTransparency and Effectiveness of VTA’ s Board The process for selecting directors for the board is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. For example, the mayors from one group of cities do not meet in public to deliberate regarding whom they will appoint as a director.

The two year term served by VTA’ s directors is established in state law and is shorter than the terms of most of their peers at other transportation agencies.

In practice, VTA directors have shorter tenures, on average, than their peers, meaning that VTA’s board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the boards of peer agencies.

VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize its Financial Health and Strategic Direction
VTA is in relatively good financial condition. The agency has consistently spent less than it received in revenue, and it has built sizeable reserves to prepare for unexpected financial events. However, VTA relies on an uncertain source— sales taxes— for more than 60 percent of its annual revenue, and it has not yet determined how it will replace this revenue once the measures authorizing these taxes begin expiring in 2036.
1CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Despite the importance of working from a strategic plan, VTA has been operating with an expired strategic plan since 2022. Further, VTA’s strategic planning documents— the expired plan and a CEO’s list of initiatives— do not contain measurable objectives, strategies for achieving particular objectives, or performance measures that would enable it to track its progress toward achieving its goals.

Agency Comments
VTA agreed with the recommendations we directed to it and indicated that it is committed to implementing them. However, VTA disagreed with the two recommendations we made to the Legislature regarding the transparency of the appointment of directors to its board and the term length for its directors. 2 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Introduction
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) is a special district responsible for providing transit services within Santa Clara County ( county). VTA reports that it provides transit services to a 346 square mile service area with more than 50 bus routes and more than 50 light rail stations.

VTA also serves as the county’s congestion management
agency, which means VTA is responsible for developing,
adopting, and updating a congestion management
program that, among other things, contains traffic
level of service standards for highways and roadways in the county. In these roles, VTA may design and
construct state highways, create transit oriented joint development projects, and provide bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The text box provides examples of VTA’s responsibilities.

Structure and Responsibilities ofVTA’s Board of Directors State law assigns responsibility for the governance of VTA to a board of directors board). The law specifies that the board is composed of 12 members ( directors), all of whom must hold office as either a mayor or city council member of a locality within the county, or as a member of the county board of supervisors. 1 According to state law, a director’s term on the board may generally last for two years, but the law does not limit the number of terms a director may serve. Figure 1 shows that the directors are appointed from six different regions, or groups, within the county—each having a fixed number of directors.

Each group is responsible for appointing its directors to the board. State law requires that, to the extent possible, the individuals appointed to the board should have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues. For the city of San José ( San José) and the county, state law specifies that the city council and the county board of supervisors must appoint their respective directors. However, the law provides that local agreements between the other cities in the county govern how the other directors are chosen. For example, the mayors from the West Valley Cities group appoint that group’s director from a pool of mayors and city council members interested in serving on VTA’s board, whereas the cities in the Northeast Cities group take turns appointing a director to the board, and that choice is approved by the city council of the city assigned the appointment. 1 According to state law, in some instances, the office of mayor, city council member, and county supervisor may be filled by an individual who is appointed. Nevertheless, for purposes of this report, we refer to all individuals who fill these positions as elected.

Examples of VTA’s Responsibilities
Providing public transportation services:
bus, light rail, and paratransit.

Developing countywide transportation planning.

Managing specific highway improvement projects.

Source: VTA policy.
3CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Figure1
VTA’s Board Is Composed of Elected Officials From the County and the Cities Therein South County Cities:

Gilroy and Morgan Hill
City Council Member
or Mayor)
West Valley Cities:

Campbell, Cupertino,
Monte Sereno, Saratoga,
and the Town of Los Gatos
City Council Member
or Mayor)
Northwest Cities:

Los Altos, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, and the Town
of Los Altos Hills
City Council Member
or Mayor)
Northeast Cities:

Santa Clara, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale
City Council Members or Mayors)
County of Santa Clara
Members of the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors)
City of San José
City Council Members
or the Mayor)
VTA’s Groups and Total Board Representatives
Source: State law and VTA’s administrative code.
4 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Broadly, VTA’s board is responsible for monitoring
VTA’s operations and capital projects, as well as
setting VTA policy. The text box lists examples of
the board’s duties. To assist it in carrying out its
responsibilities, the board maintains several
standing and advisory committees that are tasked
with providing advice and nonbinding
recommendations to the board on VTA policy. The
board may also form ad hoc committees, composed
of directors, to address and resolve specific
problems or to achieve defined objectives as needed
and for a limited duration. Figure 2 shows the
three types of committees.

Figure2
VTA’s Board Maintains Several Standing and Advisory Committees Bicycle and Pedestrian
Citizens Advisory
Policy Advisory
Technical Advisory
Transportation Mobility
and Accessibility
Administration and Finance
Capital Program
Congestion Management
Program and Planning
Governance and Audit
Safety, Security, and Transit
Planning and Operations
Advisory Committees
Members are citizens
and local o cials)
Standing Committees
Members are directors)
Ad Hoc Committees
Members are directors;
these committees are created
only when necessary)
VTA Board
Source: VTA administrative code and rules of procedure.

Each standing committee, composed of at least four directors, focuses on a specific area of responsibility. In contrast, advisory committees are composed of individuals who are not directors. Depending on the specific advisory committee, those individuals may be members of the public, organizational representatives, or local officials, or a combination of them. Similar to the standing committees, advisory committees exist to offer the board advice and nonbinding recommendations on topics relevant to their areas of responsibility. For example, the Bicycle and Examples of the Board’ s Responsibilities
Setting transit rates and charges for the transit services VTA operates.

Adopting VTA budgets.

Determining the property and equipment to be owned or
acquired by VTA to provide transit services.

Selecting and evaluating the CEO.

Source: State law; VTA’s rules of procedure; VTA policies. 5CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Pedestrian Advisory Committee is responsible for providing advice regarding funding priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Committee meeting agendas and documentation show that each standing and advisory committee has a work plan outlining items that the committee intends to address during prospective meetings.

However, the board secretary— in consultation with, among others, the board’s chairperson— is responsible for preparing the agenda for full board meetings.

VTA’s Operations and Capital Projects
The head of VTA’ s administrative branch is its chief executive officer ( CEO), who manages eight divisions. As Figure 3 details, each division carries out different elements of VTA’s responsibilities. VTA’s activities generally fall into two categories:
those related to its general operations and those involving capital projects and maintenance. In total for fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25, VTA appropriated about

5.7 billion—which included $1.8 billion for operations and $3.9 billion for its capital program. VTA’s operations primarily include the transit services that it provides to its residents—bus, light rail, and paratransit services. VTA’s capital projects and maintenance functions include its efforts to maintain its capital assets in good repair and expand its services by building new infrastructure.

VTA’s Engineering and Program Delivery division is responsible for the development and delivery of various capital projects under VTA’s capital program, including transit and highway projects. Broadly, VTA is responsible for both the delivery and operation of transit projects, therefore itimplements and maintains the assets related to transit projects. In contrast, VTA is generally responsible only for the implementation of highway projects, not their maintenance. 2 Finally, VTA has a division devoted entirely to the development of one capital project, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Extension project.

Other Transit Agencies That We Compared to VTA
Several objectives the Legislature asked us to address as part of our audit led us to identify other transit agencies against which we could compare VTA. Throughout this report, we refer to these as VTA’s peer agencies. We selected five specific entities as peer agencies based on their operating costs, the populations of their service areas, the types of transportation services they provide, and the compositions of their governing boards. Table 1 provides detailed information about these peer agencies and VTA.
2 A notable exception is VTA’s Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program. VTA is the owner and operator of this program. 6 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Figure3
VTA’s Eight Divisions Carry Out Different Functions
BART Delivery Program
The BART Delivery Program is
under the executive supervision
of the CEO and is budgeted as
part of that o ce. It provides
project oversight for the
proposed extension of the Bay
Area Rapid Transit ( BART) system.

Engineering & Program Delivery
Develops and delivers various capital projects.

External Affairs
Develops and executes a communication plan and coordinates government relations.

System, Safety & Security
Oversees system safety and compliance.

Human Resources
Provides agencywide human resources functions.

Finance, Budget & Real Estate
Oversees accounting and nance functions, including development of the biennial budget, as well as the acquisition of real property for capital projects.

Planning & Programming
Responsible for the programming of Congestion Management Program ( CMP) funds, transportation planning, service planning, and the development and review of bicycle and pedestrian planning.

Operations
Operates bus and light rail service and oversees contracted paratransit services.

Office of the CEO
The O ce of the General Manager/ CEO is responsible for overall administration, overseeing construction, planning, nancial, and capital program e orts and strategies.

The o ce includes the general manager/ CEO, the executive assistant to the CEO, the chief of communication, and the chief of sta
Source: VTA’s 2024/ 2025 biennial budget.
7CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Table1
We Compared VTA With Five Peer Transit Agencies

SANTA CLARA
VALLEY

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY ( VTA)

TRI COUNTY

METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION

DISTRICT OF

OREGON ( TRIMET)

CAPITAL

METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY

CAPMETRO)

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY

METROPOLITAN

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY

LA METRO)

SACRAMENTO

REGIONAL

TRANSIT

DISTRICT
SACRT)

ORANGE COUNTY

TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY
OCTA)
Service Area Santa Clara
County, CA
Clackamas,
Multnomah,
and Washington
Counties, OR
Travis and
Williamson
Counties, TX
Los Angeles
County, CA
Sacramento and
Yolo Counties, CA
Orange County, CA
Population of
Service Area
2022)
1,895,000 1,558,000 1,331,000 10,395,000 1,333,000 2,944,000 Operating
Costs ( 2022)
Cost per capita*
424,438,000
224
506,016,000
325
283,570,000
213
1,801,365,000
173
215,479,000
162
295,256,000
100
Selected
Transportation
Services
Provided†
CMA, rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
CMA, rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Eligible
Candidates for
the Governing
Board‡
Specified elected
officials
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Specified elected
officials and
members of
the public
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Specified elected
officials and
members of
the public
Source: Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) and National Transit Database transit agency data, transit agency documentation, state laws.

The per capita cost is the cost per person in the transit service area.

Congestion Management Agencies ( CMA) are agencies responsible for, among other things, traffic level- of-service standards for highways and roadways. We identified select transportation services common among the agencies.

In our report, we use the term specified elected officials to refer to directors who are required by law to hold a specific elective office—such asa city council member— to be eligible for appointment to the board of a transit agency. We refer to elected officials when we are discussing directors who are required or permitted by law to hold an elective office but do not need to hold a specific elective office to be eligible for appointment to the board of a transit agency.
8 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Chapter 1

VTA CAN STRENGTHEN ITS PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS

AND BETTER INFORM THE BOARD ABOUT COST AND SCHEDULE CHANGES Key Points
VTA generally followed capital project selection best practices but did not conduct cost benefit analyses before selecting two capital projects. As a result, it is not clear whether one of these projects— an extension of VTA’s light rail system— is the best use of the $653 million cost VTA plans to incur.

VTA did not always estimate the costs of the operation and maintenance of its capital projects when it developed those projects. These estimates are essential to anticipating the expected long term costs of the capital projects VTA pursues. Further, the methodologies for VTA’s project cost estimates are only partially documented.

VTA managed individual changes to project cost and schedule in accordance with its procedures. However, it does not report to the board about deviations from the estimated cost and schedule for capital projects. This lack of reporting diminishes the board’s awareness of important details about these projects.

VTA Did Not Perform Cost Benefit Analyses When It Planned Two Major Capital Projects When transit agencies plan and select capital
projects that expand their capacity, the agencies
are committing to long term, costly efforts with
the goal of improving their operations and services.

Accordingly, the process such agencies use to plan
and select these projects must thoroughly examine
the projects across several factors, including an
area’s transportation goals and the needs of the
community. To assess VTA’s project planning and
selection practices, we compared VTA’s processes
for two capital projects—the Eastridge to BART
Regional Connector ( EBRC) and the Silicon Valley
Express Lanes Program ( express lanes program)—
against selected best practices. We selected these
projects because they are large projects to which
VTA has appropriated funding within the past
five years, and they are capital expansion projects,
meaning the projects add assets to VTA’s existing
system. The text box provides information about
the scope of each project. Table 2 summarizes the
best practices we reviewed and our determination
that VTA followed two of the three best practices
for these projects.

VTA Capital Projects Reviewed
Eastridge to BART Regional Connector ($ 653 million):

VTA plans to build approximately 2.4 miles of light rail track along East Capitol Expressway in San José, starting from its existing Alum Rock station. VTA will build two new light rail stations: an elevated station at Story Road and a groundlevel station at VTA’s Eastridge Transit Center. In order to build the light rail track and stations, VTA also plans to remove two existing High- Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) lanes along Capitol Expressway.

Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program ($ 1.1 billion):

VTA has begun constructing express lanes to add the option for single- occupancy vehicles to pay a toll to use the HOV lanes on certain highways in the county. This program is a multiphase program with multiple projects. Some sections have been collecting toll revenue since 2012. One of the program’ s goals is to generate revenue for VTA’s other transit and transportation improvements.

Source: VTA project documents and website.
9CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Table 2
VTA Did Not Follow a Key Project Planning and Selection Best Practice DURING PROJECT SELECTION, A TRANSIT AGENCY SHOULD …

SELECT PROJECTS

THAT ALIGN WITH ITS
IDENTIFIED NEEDS.

CONDUCT A

COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS.

SELECT PROJECTS

THAT SHOW ALINK TO
PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

EBRC Yes No Yes
Express Lanes Program Yes No Yes
Source: VTA project documentation; best practice resources from the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Government Finance Officers Association.

A key best practice for capital project planning and selection is that an agency implements projects that align with its identified needs. VTA has identified its needs in its Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP 2040). In 2014 the board adopted this plan, which identifies capital programs, projects, and policies that the board plans to pursue through 2040. VTP 2040 outlines VTA’s needs and goals, including accommodating growth in the region, maintaining VTA’s transportation system in a state of good repair, and reducing vehicle miles and hours traveled in order to reduce emissions.

Both projects we reviewed align with needs identified in VTP 2040. Specifically, EBRC’s expected benefits align with VTP 2040’ s goals of accommodating population growth, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and reducing emissions. VTA anticipated that the EBRC project will reduce emissions by more than 50,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and reduce vehicle miles traveled by more than 124 million miles over the span of 50 years. Similarly, the express lanes program helps VTA achieve a different goal specified in VTP 2040: reduced reliance on state and federal funding.

VTA expects the express lanes program to generate an average of $164 million per year by 2040—including $68 million per year to fund other transit services and transportation improvements. Additionally, the express lanes will likely continue to operate and generate revenue for VTA beyond the period covered by VTP 2040.

Although the two projects we reviewed are likely to address needs that VTA has identified, VTA’ s staff stated that they did not perform a cost benefit analysis on either project when they proposed them to the board and received the board’s approval. A cost benefit analysis is a tool that transportation agencies use to quantify the benefits to society of implementing a transportation investment and to help determine whether a project is economically efficient. A project iseconomically efficient ifits projected future benefits equal or exceed the project’ s life cycle costs. 10 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Despite the advisability of using a cost benefit analysis to make project selection decisions, VTA did not perform a cost benefit analysis that could have informed the selection of these two projects. VTA’s chief engineering and program delivery officer chief engineering officer) informed us that VTA does not conduct a cost benefit analysis on projects unless it is required to do so to obtain external funding because such an analysis takes a considerable amount of staff resources to complete.

However, VTA’s ridership projections for the EBRC project demonstrate the importance of a cost benefit analysis because VTA is predicting only a small increase in ridership. We compared the number of riders VTA projects will ride its light rail system in 2043 if it constructs the EBRC project and the number it projects will ride the system if it does not. VTA’s ridership projections show that VTA expects that the EBRC project—which is projected to cost $653 million—will increase light rail ridership by only 1.5 percent by 2043 when compared to the number of riders expected if it did not construct the project. This increase is the equivalent of about 2,500 additional riders per day in that year. The EBRC project’ s estimated costs are 272 million per added mile of track. Although a comprehensive cost benefit analysis would likely include an examination of more factors than just ridership, such as the effects on greenhouse gas emissions and the effects on the surrounding community, the slim increase in overall ridership is a concerning sign for a project to which VTA is committing significant resources.

In response to these concerns about the EBRC project, VTA’s CEO and its chief external affairs officer asserted that VTA has a commitment to the voters who approved Measure A to follow through on the project. Voters passed Measure A in 2000, and an allowable use of the sales tax revenue generated by that measure is the expansion of light rail into the East Valley region, where VTA plans to construct EBRC. Although the EBRC project is an allowable use of Measure A funds, the measure never required VTA to construct the EBRC project, and the project’s scope does not include all parts of the projects described in the measure. Instead of connecting the East Valley to downtown through a new light rail corridor or through a direct route to downtown, as identified in the measure, the EBRC project adds

2.4 miles of light rail track to the end of an existing light rail line that only indirectly leads to downtown.

Although VTA told us that it generally does not complete cost benefit analyses, it did conduct some cost benefit analyses for the express lanes program. Specifically, its first analysis was for the third phase of the program and occurred 10 years after the board first approved the program and about two years after it made a $ 28 million appropriation to the third phase. This 2018 analysis demonstrated that this phase’ s expected benefits, valued at more than $1 billion, would exceed its costs by $ 534 million over 10 years. The analyses for the fourth and fifth phases also demonstrated that the phases’ expected benefits would exceed their costs by $ 50 million over 10 years and 586 million over six years, respectively. VTA completed all three of these analyses using a template issued by the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). 11CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
However, VTA did not complete similar analyses for the first two phases of this program. VTA highlighted for us that it had reviewed the feasibility of the express lanes program and secured external financing for the program’ s early phases, both of which it believed demonstrated that VTA had performed a review of the program’s value. Although the feasibility study does include a review of the projected expenses and revenues for the program, a project’s estimated direct expenses and resulting revenues are not as thorough as a full consideration of a project’s costs and benefits to society, which would factor in other elements such as emissions and time saved or added to commutes in the region.

As indicated earlier, VTA’s leadership shared that cost benefit analyses can be costly to produce. More specifically, VTA shared its concern that some of its capital projects are not expected to cost enough to merit a cost benefit analysis. For example, VTA pointed out that some capital projects are not major investments that expand transit services but rather smaller, less costly upgrades to existing facilities. One example from VTA’s most recent biennial budget is the remodeling of conference rooms, which is expected to cost only $229,000. We agree that some projects are not costly enough to warrant a cost benefit analysis. VTA would likely benefit from establishing a threshold cost to indicate when a project requires such an analysis.

Additionally, the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration emphasize the importance of performance measures that help transit agencies assess whether projects are helping the agency meet its goals. VTA performed a comparison between the two projects and relevant transportation performance measures. In its Major Investment Study from December 2000 that aimed to provide a strategy for investing in VTA’s transit system in the Downtown/ East Valley region, VTA compared EBRC and other project alternatives against six performance measures. These measures included total riders, new riders, and low income households served. The EBRC alternative ranked highest only for the new riders performance measure. Other alternatives— which were bus routes instead of light rail—served more low income households at lower capital costs but were not supported during community outreach sessions because they ran only during commute hours, whereas EBRC would operate for a greater period of time each day. Because VTA has not yet constructed the EBRC project, it is too early to know whether the project will achieve its expected performance.

VTA also used performance measures to assess its express lanes program. VTA’s Express Lanes Operations Report for fiscal year 2022–23 describes that vehicle speed in express lanes are above the 45 miles per hour performance goal that VTA adopted from certain federal express lane standards, showing that the program is succeeding in keeping traffic moving at the speed desired by VTA. The toll systems manager, who oversees express lanes, also provided a variance report demonstrating that for express lanes currently in operation, actual revenue is greater than the amount VTA budgeted.

For example, actual revenue for the first three phases of the express lanes program was nearly $7.8 million in fiscal year 2022, whereas VTA had planned for revenue to be less than $6 million.
12 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
More recently, VTA began evaluating and prioritizing capital projects by using its Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP). VTA adopted the SCIP in 2022 to help prioritize its long term capital needs and identify how it anticipates appropriating funding for its capital projects over the next six years. VTA’s adoption of the SCIP aligns VTA with an FTA recommendation that agencies adopt a standard review and approval framework when determining which projects to select within their capital improvement plans. In particular, VTA staff prioritize a list of proposed capital projects according to weighted scoring criteria, such as increasing ridership, enhancing safety, and environmental sustainability, among other factors. Most factors are assigned a weight of either 15 or 20 percent, with environmental sustainability being granted the lowest weight of 10 percent. Using this list, VTA told us it then ranks the capital projects against additional factors, including financial considerations and board priorities. Staff then use the final list of capital projects in the SCIP to guide the development of the biennial budget, which is how the board appropriates funds for these projects.

Best Practices Can Help Agencies Better Manage Capital Projects’ Costs, Schedules, and Changes
According to the Project Management Institute,
project management is the application of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
activities to meet a project’s requirements. The
institute explains that project management enables
organizations to execute projects effectively and
efficiently by helping them resolve problems,
manage change, and manage constraints, such as
scope, schedule, and costs. A variety of resources—
shown in the text box—are available to agencies to
guide their project management.

Transit and highway projects generally follow the
project development process that Figure 4 shows:
after initiating a project, agencies design the
project, solicit and award the contract, construct
the project, and finally close the project and begin
its operation and maintenance.

Sources of Project Management Best Practices
Project Management Institute:

Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide
Federal Transit Administration:

Construction Project Management Handbook
Project and Construction Management Guidelines
Federal Railroad Administration:

Capital Cost Estimating, Guidance for Project Sponsors
California Department of Transportation
Project Development Procedures Manual
Preparation Guidelines for Project Development Cost
Estimates, Cost Estimating Guidelines
Workplan Standards Guide
Capital Project Workplan Handbook
U.S. Government Accountability Office:

Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide
Transportation Research Board:

Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods Source: Auditor research.
13CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Figure4
Transit and Highway Projects Follow a General Project Development Process Operation and Maintenance*
During this phase, a transit agency operates the transit project and maintains it in good repair.

Construction
During this phase, a transit agency …
Supervises the contractor’ s construction of the project in accordance with the contract.

Conducts walkthroughs of the built project and completes documentation to con rm closeout of the construction contract.

Solicitation and Award of Contracts
During this phase, a transit agency …
Advertises the project construction proposal and accepts construction cost proposals from interested parties.

Compares contractor cost proposals with its own independent estimate. The outcome of this process is a contract with a xed construction cost amount.

Design and Preconstruction
During this phase, a transit agency …
Develops the project design, including the plans, speci cations, and construction quantity estimates.

Works with property owners, if necessary, to obtain land.

Project Initiation and Development
During this phase, a transit agency …
Selects a proposed project and appropriates funding to begin project development.

Identi es the scope and design concept for a range of possible project alternatives, including a no- build alternative.

Studies the environmental impacts of the project alternatives.

Chooses a preferred project alternative.

Source: FTA and Caltrans guidance, interviews with VTA staff.

Caltrans is responsible for the operation and maintenance of highway projects, with the exception of VTA’s express lanes program. 14 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
As part of our audit, we reviewed VTA’s procedures
and its implementation of six capital projects—
shown in the first text box—to determine whether
they reflect project management best practices in
the areas of cost, schedule, and change control. We
focused on these areas at the request of the
Legislature and also because they are important
areas of project management.

VTA’s Project Cost Estimates Are Not Comprehensive,
and Its Cost Estimate Methods Are Not
Sufficiently Documented
Project cost estimates are important to agencies as
they make investment decisions, set budgets,
procure firms to assist with project implementation,
and monitor their projects to assess whether they
are meeting expectations. Accordingly, itis
important for agencies to develop cost estimates
that are reliable. Thesecond text box shows the
four characteristics that the U.S. Government
Accountability Office ( GAO) Cost Estimating and
Assessment Guide states make a cost estimate
reliable. The guide also defines each of these traits.

For example, a comprehensive cost estimate
includes costs from the entire lifecycle of the
project, including the operation and maintenance
phase, and a credible cost estimate includes a
consideration of the project’s risks and the
uncertainty around the project. Although the VTA
cost estimates we reviewed exhibited some of these
characteristics, they fell short in other areas.

For the projects we reviewed, VTA did not address
the first of these elements: having comprehensive
cost estimates. VTA did not always estimate the
operation and maintenance costs for its capital
projects as part of its project development, even
though operation and maintenance costs are
essential to knowing the long term costs that
an agency will incur by committing to a project.

However, for the three projects we reviewed in
which VTA expected to incur operation and
maintenance costs, the project request forms did not include an estimate of how much those costs would be—instead two of the forms read “TBD,” meaning the costs were yet to be determined. The other form noted that the operation and maintenance costs would be offset by the fare revenue from the project but did not specify how VTA Capital Projects We Reviewed
Rail Rehabilitation Phase 7 (Rail Rehabilitation)— This project is part of an ongoing program to ensure that VTA’s light rail track infrastructure remains in a state of good repair. Rail Rehabilitation includes a subset of four projects:

Rail Replacement and Rehabilitation FY18

20.2 million): The majority of the work includes the
repair and replacement of the Younger “ Half- Grand” rail junction, including the installation of two new crossovers.

Upgrade Ohlone/ Chynoweth Interlocking ($ 4 million):

The project includes making improvements to an
interlocking at the Ohlone- Chynoweth light rail station.

Light Rail Crossover and Switches FY16– 17

8.4 million): The project involves the installation of
crossovers and power switches at several locations.

Rail Replacement and Rehabilitation FY16– 17

4.5 million): This project includes rehabilitation and
replacement of track components at various locations.

Santa Clara Pocket Track ( Pocket Track) ($ 33.6 million):

The project included the construction of a pocket track alongside existing track on Tasman Drive.

US 101/ De La Cruz Boulevard/ Trimble Road Interchange
Improvement Project ( US 101) ($75.4 million): The project includes various improvements at the US 101 interchange, including the replacement of an existing overcrossing
structure over US 101 and the installation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along De La Cruz Boulevard.

Source: VTA project documentation, VTA’s website, and
interviews with VTA staff.

Characteristics of a Reliable Cost Estimate
Comprehensive
Well documented
Credible
Accurate
Source: GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.
15CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
VTA came to this conclusion. Because VTA did not develop operation and maintenance cost estimates for these projects, the agency was at a greater risk of not being prepared to pay for their ongoing costs.

VTA did not estimate operation and maintenance costs at the time of project proposal because it lacked procedures specifying that it should do so. The chief engineering officer confirmed that the Engineering and Program Delivery division does not estimate the operation and maintenance costs for projects and that VTA does not have written procedures for how it develops project cost estimates. He also stated that a separate VTA division estimates project operation and maintenance costs. However, when we spoke with that division and the CEO, neither could clarify the division with this responsibility. Adopting procedures for including operation and maintenance cost estimates could specify which division has responsibility for developing estimates for the operation and maintenance phase of a project.

According to VTA, it is in the process of drafting a project administration manual.

The CEO shared that VTA will develop anticipated operation and maintenance costs for substantial projects like EBRC because such estimates are generally required as part of environmental documentation or seeking outside funding. For example, as part of its request for FTA grant funding for BART Phase II, VTA estimated that from fiscal years 2023–24 through 2042–43, VTA’ s total direct and fixed overhead operation and maintenance costs for its share of the BART system will be $1.9 billion.

Although VTA estimates operation and maintenance costs for substantial projects, it is also important for VTA to develop operation and maintenance cost estimates for the remainder of its capital projects. VTA has a significant number of capital projects.

Its 2024– 2025 biennial budget included appropriations to 47 capital projects in just its transit capital program, which does not include the substantial projects to which the CEO referred. Therefore, it is important for VTA to understand the operation and maintenance cost implications of its projects, regardless of their size, because without doing so it cannot ascertain the cumulative impact on its financial condition.

We also found that in the projects we reviewed, the second element of a reliable cost estimate was missing: VTA did not fully document its cost estimates. Transportation projects include two key cost estimates, which the text box shows. In addition to the GAO guidance we discuss above defining a
reliable cost estimate, guidance from the FTA,
Federal Railroad Administration, and Caltrans
also indicates that a well developed cost estimate
is documented, traceable, and includes
documented assumptions the agency used to
create the estimate.

However, VTA’s documentation of its project
cost estimates are not always aligned with this
guidance. The documents we reviewed for
VTA’s initial cost estimates showed a reasonable
explanation for the estimates that VTA
developed given the nature of the cost estimate.

As the text box indicates, the initial cost estimate
Two Key Cost Estimates of Transportation Projects
Initial Cost Estimate— Referred to as “conceptual” or
order- of-magnitude” estimates. These estimates are
developed when a quick estimate is needed and few details are available.

Baseline Cost Estimate— The control budget against
which project cost performance is measured and change
is controlled.

Source: FTA and the GAO.
16 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
is a rough order of magnitude estimate, so we did not expect VTA to keep detailed documentation to explain how it arrived at this estimate. VTA does not use the term baseline to refer to any of its cost estimates. Nonetheless, we observed that it treats its preconstruction cost estimates as baseline estimates. Preconstruction cost estimates are those cost estimates that VTA has developed by the time it has fully designed the project and awarded the construction contracts. To determine whether VTA documents its more developed project cost estimates, we reviewed VTA’s preconstruction cost estimates, as the FTA indicates that an agency should establish a baseline cost by that point in the project process.

Although the preconstruction estimates we reviewed were composed of several different types of work on the project, including design, construction, and other costs, VTA could provide documentation of its methodology for only some of these costs. VTA provided us with the documented estimation methodology for the construction portions of the projects. VTA also provided some documentation for the design portions of the six projects we reviewed, but this documentation was not comprehensive across all of the projects. Specifically, VTA provided documentation of its design cost methodology for the majority of the design costs for the Rail Rehabilitation projects and the US 101 project. However, VTA had only partially documented its methodology for the Pocket Track project. VTA had documented its estimates for the design and construction portions of these projects because it needs that information when it enters into contracts, which it uses to hold contractors responsible for the costs of specific services.

However, VTA’s project managers did not consistently retain documented methodologies for the development of other costs for its projects— that is, the costs not related to designing and building the project, such as fees, testing, and third party costs. For example, the engineering group manager for VTA’s highway program and the US 101 project manager confirmed that there was no documented methodology for the utility relocation and field operation costs for the project because they are placeholder estimates. Also, although VTA uses a staffing spreadsheet to estimate its own labor costs, it did not always keep copies of these spreadsheets. Among the six projects we reviewed, VTA had maintained complete documentation of labor estimates for only one project and retained partial documentation for another. Among the projects we reviewed, the magnitudes of the costs incurred without documented methodologies in relation to the overall project costs ranged from 13 percent to 38 percent.

VTA’s deputy director of construction for transit engineering ( construction deputy director) confirmed that VTA does not require its project managers to document the methodology used to develop their preconstruction estimates because it expects project managers to already have the technical expertise to create an estimate as part of their job qualifications and responsibilities. The GAO notes that undocumented cost estimates can lead to unanswerable questions about the estimate and make it harder for others who are unfamiliar with the project to use the estimate effectively.

Furthermore, the lack of documentation creates difficulty when trying to conduct analyses of why actual costs differed from the estimates. By not requiring its staff to document their assumptions, VTA is at a higher risk for these effects. 17CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Because VTA’s cost estimates were partially undocumented, VTA cannot know how credible they are and therefore how well they align with the third element of a reliable cost estimate. The GAO states that credible cost estimates are developed with consideration for the sensitivity of the estimates’ assumptions and the risks of the project. The GAO suggests that agencies develop estimates that help decision makers appreciate the range of costs that a project may incur so they can make informed decisions about the project.

However, the cost methodology documents VTA provided during this audit did not show VTA had identified a range of costs or demonstrate the effects of changing assumptions.

Nevertheless, we note that for the construction portions of the projects we reviewed, VTA compared its own estimate of costs against the estimates provided by bidders, which provides some independent validation of costs.

Finally, although VTA’s cost estimates are incomplete, they were generally accurate for the phases of the project that they covered. For the costs it does estimate, VTA has provided its board with a schedule of expected accuracy for its cost estimates, with the degree of accuracy dependent on the state of a project’s design. Table 3 shows VTA’s expected accuracy ranges for the initial and preconstruction estimates.

Table 3
VTA’s Cost Estimates for the Six Projects We Reviewed Generally Fell Within Accuracy Ranges

PROJECT STATUS

INITIAL ESTIMATE

ACCURATE IF WITHIN
50% TO +100%)

PRECONSTRUCTION

ESTIMATE

ACCURATE IF WITHIN
10% TO +15%)

CURRENT

ESTIMATE
AMOUNT

SPENT AS OF

FEBRUARY
2024
Upgrade Ohlone/ Chynoweth
Interlocking*
variance from current estimate
Ongoing $ 1,200, 000 $ 4,600,000 $ 4,600, 000 $ 3,880, 000 283% 0%
Rail Replacement and
Rehabilitation FY18
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 17,100,000 18,440,000 20,240,000 19,010,000
18% 10%
Light Rail Crossover and
Switches FY16– 17*
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 8,200, 000 7,750,000 8,440, 000 8,370, 000
3% 9%
Rail Replacement and
Rehabilitation FY16–17
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 4,500, 000 4,670,000 4,500, 000 4,500, 000
0% 4%
Pocket Track
variance from current estimate
Complete 21,550,000 24,810,000 33,630,000 33,630,000
56% 36%
US 101
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 60,000, 000 75,370,000 75,370, 000 58,780, 000
26% 0%
Source: VTA capital project request forms, cost reports, cost estimates for each project, and criteria for cost estimate accuracy.

The “ Current Estimate” and “Amount Spent” columns include appropriated funds for another project.

Accurate Estimate
Inaccurate Estimate
18 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
The majority of the cost estimates for the projects we reviewed—10 of 12 estimates— fell within the expected accuracy ranges. The most significant outlier was the initial estimate for the Upgrade Ohlone/ Chynoweth Interlocking project. The actual costs for this project were close to 300 percent higher than VTA’s original cost estimate.

According to documentation requesting the budget increase, the affected project area was larger than originally planned, and VTA did not anticipate the extensive system changes and equipment required to complete the project.

VTA Generally Followed Best Practices for Developing Its Project Schedules Another key activity within project management is the development and management of an accurate and complete project schedule. According to the FTA, a schedule is one of the tools that project managers use to maintain accountability for the activities that take place during a project, anticipate upcoming activities, review progress, and modify work plans if necessary. The FTA’ s publication Project and Construction Management Guidelines provides examples of the different types of schedules that transit projects typically include. Among these is the Integrated Master Project Schedule master schedule), which FTA advises should be developed early in the project lifecycle and should include information from all phases of the project lifecycle up to, but not including, the operation and maintenance phase. However, to build the master schedule, agencies must first define the specific actions necessary to produce the project’s deliverables and then estimate the amount of time necessary to complete those activities.

Consistent with best practices, for the six projects we reviewed, VTA defined the specific project activities necessary to produce deliverables and estimated the duration of each activity. For example, VTA noted that specific actions, such as writing a memo to the board and obtaining board authorization to proceed, must happen before it could award the construction contract for the US 101 project. VTA also developed the estimated start and finish dates and the estimated number of days each activity would take. By following the advised scheduling practices, VTA helps ensure that itis developing detailed schedules that will more accurately reflect the time it will take to complete a project.

In addition, VTA met industry best practices and developed a master schedule for the projects we reviewed. FTA notes that a master schedule is the official project schedule and should display how the project will be logically implemented. According to VTA’s project schedule guidelines, VTA’s project manager or project controls unit prepares a draft master schedule upon initiating a project. In the projects’ master schedules, we found that VTA included all project phases from inception to closeout, including design and engineering, bid and award, and construction. Because VTA implements master schedules, it ensures that itis developing a detailed overview of the project schedule that it can manage during the project.

Similar to our cost estimates review in the previous section, we calculated the variances between VTA’s schedule estimates and its actual project timelines. Table 4 shows the variances for VTA’s initial and preconstruction estimates for the projects we reviewed.

The variances were in part the result of circumstances outside of VTA’ s control. For example, according to the project change orders, extensions to the Rail Rehabilitation schedule during the construction phase were caused in part by global supply chain issues 19CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
and a May 2021 shooting incident at a VTA rail yard. Also, the project manager for the US 101 highway project shared that the design consultant developed an ambitious schedule for the project’s design, but stakeholders such as Caltrans, the city of San José, and the Federal Aviation Administration took longer than expected to review the design of the project.

Table 4
VTA Had Different Schedule Estimate Variances for the Projects We Reviewed

PROJECT STATUS

INITIAL

COMPLETION

ESTIMATE

COMPLETION

ESTIMATE AT

PRECONSTRUCTION

COMPLETION

ESTIMATE AS OF
APRIL 2024
Rail Rehabilitation*
variance from current estimate ( in years)
Ongoing 4/3/ 2019 9/ 21/ 2021 6/ 28/ 2024

5.2 2.8
Pocket Track
variance from current estimate ( in years)
Complete 6/30/ 2015 1/8/2015 4/ 29/ 2016

0.8 1.3
US 101
variance from current estimate ( in years)
Ongoing 12/ 30/ 2023 12/ 28/ 2024 9/14/ 2025

1.7 0.7
Source: VTA capital project request forms and schedules for each project.

VTA managed all four Rail Rehabilitation projects under one schedule.

VTA Does Not Regularly Report Project Variances to the Board The FTA and the Project Management Institute both advise that a project sponsor, such as VTA, have a process for managing changes to contracts that increase the cost, schedule, or scope of the project. The FTA explains that a change control process can enable decision makers to make cost effective decisions and help oversight staff identify errors as the source of the needed change. VTA’ s change management guidelines detail its process for managing changes to its construction contracts ( change control process). That process includes documenting the following: the justification for any change, the effect on the project’ s cost and schedule where applicable, a cost analysis, a record of VTA’s negotiation with the contractor, and approval by the change control board. The package of documents in which VTA presents these factors is called a change order, and each change order that changes the contract value by more than 50,000 or changes the contract’s schedule must be approved by VTA’s change control board. The change control board includes senior VTA staff and is responsible for reviewing and approving contract changes to ensure that, among other requirements, they are appropriate, necessary, and include required documents.

We examined a selection of 19 change orders that affected the costs or the schedules for construction contracts related to the six capital projects we reviewed. We found that VTA followed its procedures for handling these change orders, including obtaining approval from the change control board. Consistent with VTA’s change management guidelines, the change orders we reviewed contained justifications for the changes, 20 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
descriptions of the change orders’ effect on the schedules where applicable, cost analyses, records of negotiation, and approval by the change control board.

For example, VTA required a change order related to the Pocket Track project to account for lost productivity due to multiple factors, including design changes.

These changes increased the cost of that particular construction contract, which had an original value of $13.7 million and had already undergone $ 1.6 million in prior contract changes, by another $1.7 million. The project documentation for the related change order contained the required elements, including a description of the justification for the changes and a detailed discussion of the negotiations with the contractor on the price of the changes.

VTA’s staff also regularly monitor project cost and schedule information. Guidance from the FTA prescribes that agencies should monitor project costs and schedules through frequent reporting to management of the projects’ approved and ongoing costs, as well as schedule progress. We reviewed VTA’s capital project documentation and determined that VTA follows this guidance through various reporting and monitoring methods. For example, VTA utilizes monthly cost reports that monitor and report to VTA management cost information, such as the projects’ approved budget, estimated total costs, and incurred costs. Also, VTA’s technical services group manager told us that project managers and schedulers review and update project schedules on a monthly basis. Further, a deputy director of construction told us that every quarter he, the chief engineering officer, and VTA’s project controls unit, review transit project cost and schedule information.

We reviewed examples of the project reports that the managers evaluate at these meetings and verified that the reports show project cost and schedule information along with the current project phase.

However, VTA staff do not regularly inform the board about project cost or schedule variances. VTA’s staff provide updates to the board about capital project budgets and funding levels in the biennial budget. For example, the budget includes information about total capital project costs, unspent funds, and funding sources for each project.

However, VTA staff confirmed that it does not regularly update the board about variances in capital projects from the preconstruction estimates. For example, earlier in this section we discussed a change order to a construction contract originally worth $13.7 million. Cumulatively, as of the change order that we reviewed, the cost of that contract had grown to about $17 million, or about a 24 percent increase.

Because VTA staff do not regularly inform the board about variances such as this one, the board’s understanding of capital project performance is diminished.

In response to our concern that staff do not provide the board with updates about variances from the preconstruction estimated costs and schedule for VTA’s capital projects, the staff liaison to VTA’ s Capital Program Committee agreed that there would be value in staff providing semiannual reports to that committee and the board. The staff liaison indicated that the reports should include updates comparing the cost and schedule estimates of capital projects at contract award to their actual cost and schedule for any projects that have had a material change to either factor.

The staff liaison stated that he was unaware of a reason the board does not receive semiannual reports of capital projects but added that these reports would improve the board’s understanding and management of VTA’s capital programs. 21CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Recommendations
To ensure that VTA’s board is fully informed when approving projects, VTA should update its planning procedures by December 2024 to do the following:

Establish a threshold for estimated project cost that defines when project planning must include the performance of a cost benefit analysis.

Conduct a cost benefit analysis for all capital projects that meet or exceed that cost threshold.

To help ensure that it develops reliable cost estimates for its capital projects, VTA should develop procedures by December 2024 to do the following:

Document the methodology for developing its capital project cost estimates, including costs other than those directly related to the design and construction of the project.

Estimate the anticipated operation and maintenance costs for capital projects in development.

To help ensure that the board can monitor project costs and schedules, VTA should develop procedures by December 2024 to monitor project costs and schedules against preconstruction estimates and present this information as part of its semiannual report to both the Capital Program Committee and the board. This report should provide status updates on the agency’s existing capital projects and identify deviations from projects’ preconstruction estimates. 22 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Chapter 2

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES COULD INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF VTA’S BOARD
Key Points
The 12 directors on VTA’ s board are elected officials who are chosen by elected officials, which makes the board similar to other transit boards. However, the director selection process is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues.

VTA directors have shorter terms than their peers on other transit boards, which leads to shorter tenure overall, lessening the overall experience level on the board.

The board generally uses both its standing committees and advisory committees effectively to review policies and make recommendations to the full board.

Although VTA has safeguards in place to ensure that directors adhere to their fiduciary duties, it should make improvements to promote accountability for financial interest disclosures and ethics training.

VTA’s Director Selection Process Is Not Transparent Enough to Ensure the Appointment of Experienced Directors
The 12 VTA directors are public officials responsible for the strategic directionof VTA. Their decisions can affect the quality of life of everyone who lives within VTA’s jurisdiction. Given the public nature of their positions and the degree of influence that directors have, itis important that, whenever possible, directors are individuals with experience in or knowledge about transportation. To assess VTA’s process for selecting and appointing directors, we considered three factors: who selects the directors, who is eligible to serve as a director, and the selection approach used by those who select directors.

Specific elected officials appoint VTA’ s directors, a practice that makes VTA similar to other transportation agencies. State law requires the San José City Council to appoint the city’s VTA directors and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to appoint the county’s directors. Further, state law specifies that agreements between the remaining cities in the county govern how their directors are chosen.

We determined that as of December 2023, the directors that represent cities other than San José were appointed by elected officials. State law refers to those responsible for making appointments to the VTA board as appointing powers. We reviewed the appointments of each voting director as of December 2023, and determined that all were selected by the appropriate appointing powers.
23CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Having elected officials appoint directors aligns VTA with the most common practice in the country. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), 60 percent of transit boards are appointed by local or state officials, such as mayors, governors, or a legislative body, and only 3 percent of transit boards are directly elected. 3 The laws that create four of the five peer agencies we reviewed also specify that certain elected officials, such as city council members, mayors, and county supervisors, appoint all but three of the directors of those agencies. 4 VTA not only conforms to the most common practice nationwide but also has a practice similar to its peers.

State law restricts who can serve as a director and, within those restrictions, VTA has provided guidance to the appointing powers about the desirable traits for a director. As the text box shows, state law does
not allow a member of the general public to serve
as a VTA board director. Additionally, state law
requires that, to the extent possible, directors
be individuals with expertise, experience, or
knowledge relative to transportation issues— a
requirement we refer to in this report as the
experience requirement. As of December 2023,
all directors were the elected officials state law
requires. However, as we note in more detail
below, the appointing powers did not always
demonstrate to the public that they fulfilled
the experience requirement when appointing
directors. In addition to the requirements in
state law, VTA has published nonbinding guidance for the appointing powers about its expectations for directors. These expectations include the directors devoting an average of five to 10 hours per month to board and committee assignments, representing the interests of their constituency while endeavoring to achieve regional consensus, and keeping their respective jurisdictions informed on key issues.

The state law requiring that VTA’ s directors are specified elected officials is unique among the peer agencies we reviewed. The law that establishes SacRT does not restrict directorship to elected officials, although in practice the board—as of April 2024—is composed solely of city council members and county supervisors.

Differently, the state law that governs CapMetro requires that three of its eight directors be elected officials but does not restrict the other five directorships to elected officials. In addition, the board of directors for LA Metro and OCTA are required by law to be composed of a combination of members of the public and specified elected officials, with the majority of directors on each board required tobe those elected officials.
3 The American Public Transportation Association is an international nonprofit association that represents more than 1,500 public and private sector member organizations. According to the association’ s website, more than 90 percent of people using public transit in the United States and Canada ride on systems belonging to its members. 4 State law establishing SacRT’ s board does not specify the individuals within the appointing power who are responsible for appointing the agency’ s directors. Nevertheless, SacRT confirmed that in practice the directors are appointed by elected officials.

Requirements forVTA Director Selection
Directors appointed by a city must be a mayor or city
council member, and directors appointed by the county
must be a member of the board of supervisors.

To the extent possible, appointing powers must select
directors who have expertise, experience, or knowledge
relative to transportation issues.

Source: State law.
24 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Restricting directorships to elected officials likely provides some benefits, but the practice also limits the expertise that appointing powers can access when making appointment decisions. In our July 2008 audit of VTA, we stated that having elected officials serve on the board may allow VTA to be more influential in aligning local land use decisions with the countywide transportation plan.5 Additionally, elected officials—having gained support for their leadership—could serve as trusted messengers to their local jurisdictions on behalf of VTA. Nonetheless, because state law restricts other individuals from serving as directors, the pool of candidates for VTA’s board is limited and excludes members of the public who have direct experience with transit or transportation issues. Overall, the law limiting directors to specified elected officials likely leads to a board with less experience with transit or transportation issues than one that could exist without such limits.

Nonetheless, the appointing powers could maximize the transit and transportation experience on the board by ensuring that their appointments comply with the experience requirement. Accordingly, we reviewed the ways in which a selection of appointing powers chose their directors to determine whether the appointment processes were public and demonstrated that the appointing powers complied with the experience requirement. Specifically, we reviewed the available public record of the meetings for the appointing powers that took place in January and February 2023, as presented in Figure 5.6 None of the appointing powers we reviewed have a formal process that requires them to publicly cite and document appointee qualifications. This lack of a formal public process may allow the appointing powers to circumvent the experience requirement.

For appointments made by the cities of San José, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, the appointments were made at a public city council meeting. The city councils for San José and Sunnyvale discussed the general attributes of their appointees, including experience and the ability to work with others. For example, in January 2023, Sunnyvale’ s city council discussed its appointee’ s experience serving on VTA’s policy advisory committee and the benefits that experience would provide to the individual as a director.

However, each of the appointing powers confirmed that it does not have a formal process to make public the qualifications of its appointees to VTA’ s board. As a result, appointing powers are able to make appointments without having affirmatively demonstrated to the public that their appointees have the relevant experience necessary to fulfill their responsibilities on VTA’ s board. For example, during Santa Clara’ s city council meeting in February 2023, it voted to approve the appointment of its VTA director without any discussion of that individual’s qualifications or the extent to which it had considered other candidates who may have had transportation experience. Without a process in place requiring appointing powers to make public the qualifications of their appointees, VTA and the public are not always able to determine whether the appointing powers adhered to the experience requirement and appointed qualified candidates to VTA’ s board.
5 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: It Has Made Several Improvements in Recent Years, but Changes Are Still Needed, 2007 129, July 2008.
6 We did not review the appointment process for the city of Milpitas, because it appointed an alternate director in 2023, rather than a director.
25CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Figure 5
The Appointing Powers We Reviewed Have Different Processes for Selecting Directors Cities of Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale
2 voting directors)
The cities take turns appointing a director from
among their city council members and mayors.

The city council making the appointment
votes on the appointment.

Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos
1 voting director)
At a non- public meeting, the mayors of the ve cities vote for a director from among the members of their collective city councils.

San José
5 voting directors)
At a public meeting, the mayor recommends the city council members whom the mayor believes should be directors.

The city council votes to approve the recommendation.

Source: State law and VTA administrative code; documentation and interviews provided by each city group.

Note: The graphic does not include the selection processes for Santa Clara County, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, or Palo Alto.

The remaining cities we reviewed—Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and the town of Los Gatos— which represent a single city group, used the least transparent appointment process among the groups we reviewed. This process involves the mayors or other designated leaders of each city holding a meeting to determine who will be their appointed director. State law governing local government meetings requires that legislative bodies of local agencies— such as city councils—publicly report all actions taken by the body. However, this appointing power is not a legislative body and, as a result, itis not required by this law to hold a public meeting. Campbell’ s city manager confirmed that this appointing power’ s meeting is not public. Accordingly, the public does not know this group’s reasons for its appointment decisions and has no assurance that the appointing power satisfied the requirement to appoint individuals with transportation experience to the extent it was possible to do so.

Because appointment decisions are not always deliberated and delivered in public, a significant safeguard for ensuring that appointing powers choose qualified directors is missing. VTA’s CEO agreed that the appointing powers should be more transparent in the selection of their directors, but she also expressed her belief that VTA’s enabling 26 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
statute did not need to be amended to promote such transparency. Nonetheless, because VTA does not have the authority to mandate such transparency, legislative action would be required to compel more transparency in the appointment process.

VTA Directors Have Briefer Tenures Than Their Peers at Other Transit Agencies Although we could not identify any recommendations from authoritative sources specifying the number of years that a director should serve on a board of directors, we reviewed available guidance on board membership in the public sector and determined that having a mixture of experience levels on the board can provide benefits. For example, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s governance guidance states that effective boards have both short and long tenured directors to ensure that fresh perspectives are provided and that experience, continuity, and stability exist on the board.

The Transit Cooperative Research Program ( TCRP)— a federally sponsored transportation research organization— reported that in response to a national survey of transit CEOs and board chairs, respondents said that some of their board members serve staggered terms to ensure that the board has both continuity and fresh ideas. The TCRP further reported that transit agency boards should have sufficient continuity and institutional memory to promote long term planning and follow through. These sources indicate that longer tenured directors can benefit a board by providing stability and experience.

However, the average tenure of VTA’s directors is shorter than directors’ average tenure at the peer agencies we reviewed. Only three of the peer agencies— LA Metro, OCTA, and SacRT—maintained historical data regarding their directors’ tenures. To assess the average tenure of directors at VTA and at these agencies, we identified all directors who served for any duration during the period of 2013 through 2023. We then calculated the average number of years those directors served regardless of when those years occurred. Figure 6 shows the results of our review and demonstrates that VTA’s directors served for notably shorter periods, on average, than did their peers.

Figure 6
VTA Directors’ Average Tenure Is Shorter Than Average Tenures of Directors at Peer Agencies Average Years of Service
109876543210

8.3 years

5.3 years

9.3 years

3.7years
SacRT
OCTA
LA Metro
VTA
Source: Director tenure documentation provided by the agencies that maintain such data.

Note: CapMetro and TriMet did not maintain historical data on the tenure of their directors. 27CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
One contributing factor to shorter tenure among VTA’s directors is VTA’s shorter term lengths. As we describe in the Introduction, state law establishes the term length for VTA’s directors generally at two years. State law allows up to 30 days beyond two years if a director’s successor has not been appointed. However, this term length is generally half as long as the duration of the term lengths among VTA’s peers. Three of the five peer agencies have four year terms. Table 5 compares the term lengths of VTA directors and those of its peers. VTA’s term lengths are also shorter than the national average. According to the TCRP, the average transit board member serves a three year or four year term.

Table5
VTA’s Directors Have Shorter Terms Than the Terms of Directors at Most of the Peer Agencies We Reviewed

AGENCY DIRECTOR

TERM LENGTH
VTA 2 years
CapMetro 2 years
LA Metro 4 years
SacRT 4 years
TriMet 4 years
Source: State laws creating these agencies.

Note: We do not include OCTA in the table because state law does not standardize the term lengths for most directors on the board for OCTA. Instead, state law allows the appointing powers that place directors on OCTA’ s board to set the directors’ term lengths. The exception is the public members who have term lengths of four years prescribed in state law.

Another factor contributing to VTA’s shorter director tenures has been the city groups’ appointment decisions. Directors who were appointed by the city groups that have only one board director representative as well as the Northeast Cities group all had shorter tenures than the directors representing San José and the county, who had average tenures of roughly four and eight years respectively. The state law that creates VTA does not establish a limit on the number of terms that a person can serve as a VTA director— meaning that so long as a person continues to serve as an eligible elected official in their respective jurisdiction, a city group could reappoint that individual as their designated director indefinitely. In fact, the South County group, composed of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, has reappointed individuals to consecutive terms, resulting in that group having directors with the longest average tenure of any of the non San José city groups at an average of nearly three and a half years. The remaining non San José city groups have generally rotated which cities appoint a director to the board, and those directors have an average tenure of about two and a half years. Although that practice allows for the city groups to rotate which city has a director on the board, it generally detracts from the overall tenure and experience level of the board.

In previous reviews of its board tenure, VTA has received recommendations to extend its term length to four years. Our July 2008 audit found that VTA director tenure was shorter than tenures at comparable transit agencies at that time, and we recommended that VTA request a change to state law that would allow itto implement a four year term.

Similarly, a 2019 grand jury review of VTA noted that extending the term length of its 28 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
directors to four years would increase the average tenure of board members and help provide continuity on the board. In May 2019, a VTA ad hoc board enhancement committee began meeting to review VTA’s governance practices. This committee commissioned an independent study that ultimately recommended that VTA’s board adopt a four year term for its directors.

Despite these recommendations to pursue a four year term length for its directors, VTA has not done so. In response to our July 2008 recommendation, VTA stated that the board had recently voted to keep a two year term for its directors and encouraged the appointing powers to reappoint board members to consecutive terms. A VTA staff report in August 2020 to the Governance and Audit committee in response to the 2019 study of VTA’s structure reached similar conclusions.

Although staff noted that it takes a VTA director about two years on average to become comfortable and effective in their role, the staff recommended that VTA keep the two year term length. The staff report noted that the two year term length allowed city groups to remain flexible with their appointments, whereas a four year term can limit their flexibility and options.

Because state law establishes the length of VTA’s directors’ terms, legislative action will be necessary to lengthen those terms. In July 2008 our office reported that extending the terms to a four year period was appropriate and recommended that VTA pursue this change to the law. Nearly 16 years have passed since we made that recommendation, and VTA’s tenure remains lower than its peers. Therefore, we believe that the Legislature should take action to extend the term length for VTA directors to four years, more closely aligning VTA with its peer agencies and helping to ensure that it is composed of individuals with the experience to lead VTA.

VTA’s Use of Alternate Directors Does Not Lower the Attendance of Regular Directors When directors cannot attend a board or committee meeting, VTA uses alternate directors to attend the meetings in their absence. According to state law, in addition to the 12 directors, there must be two alternate directors, one from the county and one from San José. Further, state law permits the other cities to agree to have alternate directors. VTA’s administrative code states that alternate directors will attend board meetings, attend assigned standing committee meetings, and sit for and vote in place of their director ifthat director is absent. Alternate directors are not required to attend board meetings unless the director they are an alternate for cannot attend, although they are allowed to attend even when the director they serve as an alternate for is already in attendance.

We also reviewed guidance from the TCRP on board governance and management of transit agencies. The guidance noted that boards may use alternate directors; however, the guidance we reviewed neither recommended nor discouraged the practice. Of the five peer agencies we reviewed, only SacRT uses alternate directors.

The law establishing SacRT allows the entities appointing directors to the board to also select alternate directors.
29CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
External reviewers have expressed concern about VTA’s use of alternate directors.

In 2019 the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report on VTA’s governance and remarked that alternate directors may cause directors to deprioritize meeting attendance. Also in 2019, VTA contracted for a governance assessment, and the scope of work included evaluating VTA’s governance compared to other transit agencies. The firm that conducted the assessment recommended that VTA stop using alternate directors, stating that the alternate directors are often not needed to achieve a quorum and their average attendance rate is low—indicating that the board often does not rely on the alternates.

However, the existence of alternate directors does not appear to have affected director attendance, which was generally high. We reviewed VTA director attendance data from 2020 through June 2023. VTA directors attended 92 percent of board meetings and 83 percent of committee meetings, which are relatively high attendance rates. Further, VTA staff and directors noted that there is value in having alternate directors, including the fact that serving as an alternate director can provide experience and exposure to VTA that could prepare an alternate to become a director. In our review of board tenure we noted that several directors who served during the past ten years had started as alternates. Given the relatively high attendance rate of regular directors and the potential benefits of alternate directors, we did not conclude that VTA should discontinue its use of alternate directors.

VTA’s Board Generally Uses Its Committees Effectively by Consulting Them About Relevant Policies and Incorporating Their Input
As we describe in the Introduction, VTA maintains several standing and advisory committees. VTA’s administrative code, rules of procedure, and committee bylaws assign a title, duties, and responsibilities to each committee. For example, the Capital Program Committee is responsible for reviewing and recommending to the board policies pertaining to VTA’s capital projects. According to the TCRP, transit agencies create committees to accomplish specific tasks and to address needs that the board is responsible for governing. The TCRP adds that
committees make recommendations to the full
board for approval. To assess whether VTA uses
its committees effectively, we reviewed each
standing and advisory committee’s involvement in
the development of five VTA policies, which the
text box lists. For each policy, we assessed
three areas: whether all of the applicable standing
and advisory committees provided their
perspective or advice on the policy, whether the
committees provided that perspective or advice
before board approval, and whether VTA staff
presented the committees’ perspective or advice
to the board.

Policies We Reviewed for
Board Committee Involvement
Biennial budget for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025– 26
Strategic Capital Investment Plan
Visionary Transit Network Plan
2023 Transit Service Plan
2016 Measure B 10-Year Program and Biennial
Budget Principles.

Source: VTA policies.
30 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
For the five policies we reviewed, the board’ s committees generally reviewed the policies and provided advice or recommendations when the policies were relevant to the committees’ areas of responsibility. For example, the Capital Program Committee reviewed and provided advice on VTA’s Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP), but it did not review the 2023 Transit Service Plan, which was outside of the committee’ s purview because itfocused on changes to VTA’s services rather than its capital programs.

In total, across the five policies we reviewed and VTA’ s 10 standing and advisory committees, we identified 34 instances in which a committee’ s responsibilities appeared to overlap with the policies we reviewed. In all but eight of these cases, VTA’s committees reviewed the relevant policy. In four of these eight cases, VTA had reasonable explanations for why the apparently relevant committees did not review a particular policy. One example of this type of exception is the approach VTA took to review its biennial budget. Although the Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations ( SSTPO) Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the board about transit planning, capital projects, and operations and marketing, it did not review the biennial budget. However, the staff liaison to this committee explained that, although the biennial budget allocates funds for transit projects and operations, the committee did not review the budget because it does not relate to the planning or development of projects with respect to their safety or security— which is a focus of the committee’ s responsibilities. We find this explanation reasonable.

Nevertheless, we found four instances in which committees likely should have reviewed a policy but did not do so. As mentioned above, the Capital Program Committee reviewed the SCIP, but no advisory committees reviewed that policy.

According to the staff liaison for the committee, VTA chose to focus the involvement of its standing committees to just the Capital Program Committee because itis the committee with primary responsibility for this plan and doing so alleviated the workload of the other committees. We agree that this rationale is reasonable but note that it meant two advisory committees— the Policy Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee— did not review the SCIP when they likely should have given their purviews. For example, the Policy Advisory Committee— which is made up of members who represent VTA’s member cities—is responsible for advising the board on multiple issues, including long range transportation planning, VTA’s budget, and service modifications, and as a result could provide valuable stakeholder input on the SCIP. The staff liaison agreed that it was a good idea for VTA to solicit stakeholder input on the SCIP and that, looking forward, VTA should present matters regarding the SCIP to relevant advisory committees.

In addition, we found two other instances in which a committee was not involved in a policy related to its responsibility. Specifically, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, which is responsible for providing advice to the board on funding priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects, did not review the program principles that guide funding for the 2016 Measure B Program— a program that in part funds bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance—for a 10 year period.

The committee’ s staff liaison acknowledged that not involving the committee was an oversight by VTA’s staff. Similarly, the Capital Program Committee also did not review the principles for the 2016 Measure B Program, which funds capital projects 31CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
that are in part managed by VTA. As a result, the committee missed an opportunity to fulfill its responsibility to review the efficacy of a policy that influences howthe agency intends to fund VTA capital projects.

In all cases when committees reviewed policies, they did so before the board made an approval decision. We reviewed the meeting minutes of 36 committee meetings and found that the committees generally reviewed policies at least one month before staff presented the policy to the board. This timeline indicates that VTA staff should have sufficient time to respond to committees’ advice and adjust policies before presenting them to the board. In fact, we saw those types of adjustments occurring when we reviewed the materials presented to the board.

Staff presented the committees’ input or recommendations to the board. For example, when the SSTPO Committee received the 2023 Transit Service Plan— VTA’s plan for bus and light rail services in 2023— committee members thanked the staff for developing the policy based on market and data driven analyses that also focused on equity. The SSTPO Committee subsequently recommended the policy to the board for approval, and staff presented that recommendation to the board. We also identified instances when committees recommended that staff amend or refine a policy to reflect a desired change that committee members requested. For example, during the development of the principles for the 2016 Measure B 10 Year Program, the Administration and Finance Committee recommended that staff amend the principles to include the percentage of funds allowed to be spent on each program category, consistent with the measure’s ballot language. The version of the policy that staff presented to the board included the committee’ s recommended changes.

VTA Could Strengthen Its Safeguards to Better Ensure That Directors Uphold Their Fiduciary Duties
It is important that government officials exercise
their fiduciary duties to ensure that they are acting
in the best interest of the people and institutions
that they serve. VTA’s Code of Ethics states that
directors are required to carry out their duties
in the best interest of the agency and all agency
stakeholders, which includes the residents of
Santa Clara County. VTA further defines each
director’s fiduciary duties in its new director
orientation, where it explicitly specifies two duties,
which the text box shows.

Determining that a director has breached their
fiduciary duties is a difficult task, potentially
requiring evidence of the director’s intention or
state of mind when the director took certain actions.

Therefore, we instead reviewed the extent to
which VTA has created an environment that encourages directors to uphold their fiduciary duties. During our review, we observed several positive signs.

Fiduciary Duties of VTA Directors
Duty to be diligent and informed
Directors should consider all relevant information before making decisions, understand the complete financial
consequences of policy proposals, and work through the
CEO to provide direction to VTA staff.

Duty to be responsible and loyal
Directors should make decisions that are in the best
interest of VTA and the VTA territory, subordinate the
interests of individual directors or local jurisdictions, think regionally, and act in the best interests of all stakeholders, on behalf of VTA as a whole.

Source: VTA new director orientation training.
32 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
We found that VTA clearly communicates its expectations of directors. A key example is the content of its new director orientation, which is excerpted in the text box. The new director orientation also lists the types of activities that directors undertake that will require them to uphold their fiduciary duties, such as adopting the budget for VTA, making decisions related to capital projects, and managing VTA’s assets. Moreover, consistent with best practices from the GAO, VTA has established its Code of Ethics that outlines the ethical responsibilities and standards of conduct to which directors must adhere, including the responsibility to promote the best interest of the public when determining VTA policy.

Further, the process by which directors make VTA policy encourages accountability.

Earlier we describe how we reviewed the process by which VTA considered and adopted five key policies. Discussions on these policies occurred in public meetings at both the committee and full board level. Discussing and making decisions on VTA policy in public promotes accountability because it requires directors to make decisions subject to public comment and critique.

VTA’s process for reviewing policies in committee also supports directors fulfilling their duty to be informed before making policy decisions. Our review of the board’s involvement in the five policies revealed that directors received information and proposals on the policies prior to voting on them. For example, during the development of the SCIP, the directors on the Capital Program Committee held five separate meetings from April 2021 through April 2022 to review, amend, and refine the SCIP prior to its presentation to the board, suggesting that directors exercised diligent review of the policy.

To determine the extent to which VTA directors consulted with their city staff and city councils prior to voting on a policy, we interviewed four VTA directors who represented different city groups, and they said that under certain circumstances they do consult or share information with their respective city staff or city council members. For example, one director shared that he discusses matters related to the upcoming BART project with his city staff. We reviewed the meeting agendas of 30 city council meetings that took place within two months before the board voted on one of the five policies that we discussed earlier, but we did not see these policies on the agendas for discussion at the council meetings we reviewed.

Nevertheless, VTA’s directors do receive input and recommendations from city staff and city council members through the advisory committees on which those individuals sit. Such advice can help the board build regional consensus and make decisions on issues that are in the best interest of the county. VTA has five advisory committees that represent county stakeholders and the various jurisdictions within the county by including city staff and city council members, as well as other members of the community as committee members. These committees provide stakeholder perspective to the board before it votes on a policy. For example, the Citizens Advisory Committee— a committee of 13 individuals representing different stakeholder groups in the county—provided its perspective to the board and recommended that the board adopt the Visionary Transit Network, a vision and framework for fast and reliable transportation services. Because directors 33CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
receive input and recommendations from the public and key stakeholders on policy proposals prior to adoption, the board is better able to make decisions that are in the best interests of the agency and the county.

Despite these positive elements, VTA could strengthen its safeguards to hold directors accountable to their fiduciary duties. One way that a director could violate their fiduciary duties would be to make decisions for their own benefit or financial interest instead of for the benefit or financial interest of VTA and its constituents.

Generally speaking, this type of decision making could constitute a conflict of interest. We assessed VTA and the 27 directors who served on the board from 2021 through 2023, including alternates, for adherence to several requirements and best practices that are intended to help prevent
conflicts of interest, as described in the text box.

We found that the directors generally adhered to
these requirements and best practices. For
example, as required by state law, VTA has a
conflict of interest code to govern the directors’
requirement to disclose reportable financial
interests. However, VTA could enhance its
approach to two statutory requirements regarding
conflicts of interest—disclosing economic interests
and completing ethics training.

We reviewed the directors’ adherence to state
law requiring that certain officials disclose
particular economic interests which is done
by filing a Statement of Economic Interests
Form 700). We requested the Form 700s filed by
each director who served in 2021 or 2022 and
by all directors who assumed their directorship
in 2023 and found that 25 of the 27 directors we
reviewed submitted their Form 700s. If an official
does not submit the Form 700, state law requires
that the entity’s filing officer report the officialto
the appropriate agencies, which may include the
California Fair Political Practices Commission ( FPPC). Failure to appropriately file a Form 700 may subject the official to criminal or civil penalties.

For the two directors who did not submit their forms—one current and one former director—VTA’s board secretary explained that although VTA sends reminders to directors who have not submitted their forms, the agency does not report delinquent filers to the FPPC because she believes it is the county’ s responsibility—not VTA’ s— to report these directors to the FPPC. The county sent notifications to both directors to inform them that it had not received their forms and that it would report them if they remained in violation of their reporting requirements. In March 2024 VTA’s board secretary indicated that the agency would send reminders to both directors to submit their forms. Although we agree that the county, as VTA’s filing officer, is required to report relevant violations to the FPPC, the state law governing the filing Key Requirements and Best Practices to
Detect and Prevent Conflicts of Interest

1. Establish a conflict of interest code— Agencies must adopt and promulgate a conflict- of-interest code that
identifies positions within the agency that are required to report financial interests and what interests they
should report.

2. File statements of economic interest— Directors must disclose specified financial interests and sources of income.

3. Conduct biennial ethics training— Certain local agency officials, including directors, must receive an ethics
training at least once every two years.

4. Establish a standard of conduct— Agencies should
establish standards to communicate expectations
concerning ethical values and can use policies to
communicate those standards.

Source: State law, GAO best practices, and VTA Conflict of Interest Code.
34 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
of Form 700s does not prohibit VTA from also reporting the directors. Because VTA did not report these two directors to the FPPC, VTA has not taken steps to hold all of its own directors accountable for disclosing their financial interests.

We also reviewed VTA directors’ compliance with a state ethics training requirement and found that the agency does not have a process to monitor whether directors complete this training. State law requires that certain local officials receive an ethics training course every two years. An analysis of the bill enacting that requirement suggested that the intent of the requirement was to enhance officials’ understanding of how to use public resources and adhere to ethics guidelines set forth in state law. To determine whether VTA directors completed their required ethics training course, we requested from VTA’s board secretary the 27 directors’ most recent course completion certificates that they should have received from 2019 through 2023. VTA was unable to locate certificates for four of the directors. One of these individuals no longer serves on VTA’s board as of April 2024, suggesting that the director may not have fulfilled the ethics training requirement before leaving the board. The board secretary stated that the Office of the Board’ s Secretary ( secretary’s office) has attempted to collect the ethics training course completion certificates for these four individuals. However, the board secretary explained that VTA does not have a process to track which directors have submitted their certificates. Instead, she stated that the secretary’ s office sends emails to VTA’ s directors reminding them to take their ethics training and submit their certificate to the secretary’ s office. Because VTA does not have a process in place to track whether directors complete their ethics training, it cannot be assured that all of its directors are properly trained about their ethical obligations.

Finally, recommendations that we have made throughout this report could also strengthen VTA’s safeguards against breaches of fiduciary duties. For example, creating cost benefit analyses of capital projects will better illustrate the benefits and tradeoffs of approving certain investments. This practice could in turn enhance directors’ ability to make decisions in the best interests of the agency and the county. Expanding the agency’ s oversight of its budget, which we discuss later in the report, will provide more information to directors about VTA’s efficiency in using its resources to benefit its residents. Finally, as we also explain later in the report, developing a new strategic plan that articulates clear direction about the agency’s measurable goals would provide a clear indicator of what directors should be considering when making decisions.
35CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Recommendations
Legislature
To ensure that VTA’s appointing powers appoint directors based on their relevant qualifications, the Legislature should amend state law to require that VTA’ s appointing powers make public, consistent with applicable privacy protections, their rationales for the appointments they make to VTA’s board, including a description of the appointee’ s relevant experience and qualifications related to transit and transportation.

To make VTA’s term lengths more consistent with those of its peer transit agency boards and to help increase the overall experience and stability of board membership, the Legislature should amend state law to increase the length of VTA directors’ terms to four years.

VTA
To ensure that VTA receives stakeholder input on the Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP), the agency should ensure that it presents all subsequent updates to the SCIP to the appropriate advisory committees, solicits their input, and presents that input to the board.

To ensure that it more effectively safeguards against a breach of fiduciary duty, VTA should complete the following by December 2024:

Establish a policy requiring relevant staff, including the secretary’ s office, to report to the FPPC those directors who do not submit their Form 700s in a timely manner.

Establish a process for verifying whether directors have completed their biennial ethics training and following up to remind those who have not done so to complete the training.
36 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Chapter 3

VTA SHOULD ADOPT SEVERAL ADDITIONAL PRACTICES TO OPTIMIZE

ITS FINANCIAL HEALTH AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION
Key Points
Although VTA is in relatively good financial condition—with its revenues regularly exceeding its expenses and a sizeable reserve for unexpected economic conditions— more than 60 percent of its annual revenue comes from sales tax revenue, an uncertain revenue source. VTA has not determined how it will replace this revenue source as sales tax measures begin to expire.

VTA creates financial forecasts 10 years into the future, showing that it is following a key financial planning best practice. However, VTA’ s forecasts do not always include multiple expense scenarios, limiting its ability to set its budget with multiple situations in mind.

VTA did not consistently monitor its budget for variances between actual spending and planned spending and does not report key financial metrics to its board. As a result, VTA has less insight than it otherwise would into where it may need to improve its operations.

VTA’s strategic plan expired in 2022, and neither the expired plan nor interim strategic initiatives VTA has pursued have included measurable objectives that VTA or the public could use to determine whether VTA is making progress towards its strategic goals.

VTA Is in Relatively Good Financial Health but Would Benefit From Taking Additional Actions to Better Ensure Its Continued Viability
For a government agency, maintaining a good financial condition is essential to ensuring that it can continue to meet stakeholder needs. There are several indicators that can demonstrate whether a government is financially healthy. Accordingly, we assessed VTA by considering the following: whether the agency has been in a spending deficit or surplus, whether it has maintained the recommended level of reserve funding, the uncertainty of its revenue sources, and the size of and ways that it is funding its pension and other post employment benefits ( OPEB) expenses.

For the past six fiscal years, VTA has consistently reported higher revenues than expenses. Figure 7 shows VTA’s total revenues and expenses, including the amount of revenue it received from COVID 19 pandemic related federal assistance. Despite a decrease during the initial period of the pandemic, VTA’s overall annual revenue has grown since fiscal year 2017–18. Moreover, the growth in revenue has generally aligned with the growth in VTA’s expenses over the past six fiscal years, during which VTA recorded a 68 percent increase in revenue and a 67 percent increase in expenses.
37CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Figure 7
VTA’s Revenue Was Consistently Higher Than Its Expenses Over the Past Six Fiscal Years ExpensesPandemic- Related
Federal Assistance
Operating and
Non-Operating Revenue
Fiscal Year
192017– 18 202018– 212019– 222020– 232021– 2022–
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Do
l
l
a
r
s
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Source: VTA’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for fiscal years 2017– 18 through 2022– 23.

Note: The spike in revenue in fiscal year 2018– 19 was caused by the realization of 2016 Measure B sales tax revenue after a court ruling on the legality of the measure.

For a three year period spanning from fiscal years 2019–20 through 2021–22, VTA relied significantly on pandemic related federal assistance to support its major operating fund, the VTA transit fund. During this period, the fund operated at a deficit in one year—meaning that its change in net position was negative—and would have been in a similar situation in all three fiscal years had it not been for that federal assistance. Nonetheless, these federal funds were awarded in recognition of an extraordinary disruption to transit operations caused by circumstances outside the control of agencies like VTA. Accordingly, we do not find the reliance on such funds to be a sign of mismanagement by VTA. In fact, when these federal assistance programs stopped providing funds in fiscal year 2022–23, VTA continued to avoid operating at a deficit.
38 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
VTA has accumulated significant reserve funding. The California Special Districts Association recommends that special districts such as VTA establish policies that set a target level of reserves to maintain based on a percentage of regular operating revenues or regular operating expenditures, depending on which element is more predictable. In addition, the Government Finance Officers Association ( GFOA) recommends that general purpose governments maintain at all times a minimum unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months’ of either operating revenues or operating expenditures. As of June 30, 2023, VTA had three reserves, each with its own dedicated use as Table 6 shows. 7 In fiscal year 2022–23, VTA nearly exactly met the reserve target for its operating reserve— 15 percent of the operating budget.

Although this amount on its own does not quite reach the level recommended by the GFOA, VTA has other reserves to supplement its operating reserve. Accordingly, VTA is currently well positioned to address unexpected swings in its revenues and expenditures, which ultimately can reduce the effect of that uncertainty on the residents it serves.

Table6
VTA Has Established Reserves

RESERVE TYPE PURPOSE

RESERVE AMOUNT
AS OF JUNE 30, 2023

IN MILLIONS)

DID VTA MEET THE
RECOMMENDED RESERVE AMOUNT?
Operating Reserve To ensure that sufficient funds are always available in the event of either unanticipated shortfalls in
revenue from sources other than sales tax or
unavoidable expenditure needs.
91 Yes
Sales Tax Stabilization To mitigate the impact of sales tax receipt volatility on service levels and on the operating budget.
35 Meets maximum allowed in reserve
Debt Reduction To enhance VTA’s fiduciary governance practices and ensure that funds are available to sustain a capital
program that maintains VTA’s infrastructure and
keeps assets in a state of good repair. May be used
to reduce long- term liabilities or to provide funding
for approved transit related capital improvements
and replacement of capital assets.
375 N/A*
Source: VTA fiscal year 2022– 23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report; VTA policy.

Note: In March 2024, the board approved a transfer of $115 million from the Debt Reduction Reserve to help fund the EBRC Project.

VTA’s Debt Reduction Reserve does not have a targeted level of funding or a cap on the available balance. Once the targeted balances have been met for the Operating Reserve and the Sales Tax Stabilization Reserve, any additional amounts are added to the Debt Reduction Reserve. 7 VTA established the Transit Operations Capital reserve in fiscal year 2023– 24 with a $ 100 million transfer from the Debt Reduction reserve. The Transit Operations Capital reserve was created to be the primary funding source for VTA’s biennial transit operations capital program.
39CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
In part, VTA’s reserve policies reflect its vulnerability to changes in the economy. A large percentage of VTA’s revenue—on average more than 60 percent over the past six fiscal years—is derived from sales taxes, a revenue source that fluctuates with the economy. Figure 8 shows the different revenue sources that VTA relied on during this period and the proportion that each source represented of its total revenue.

Figure 8
Sales Tax Revenue Is Consistently the Largest Portion of VTA’s Total Revenue Sales Tax
Capital and
Operating Grants
Operating Revenue
includes transit fares,
advertising revenue,
toll revenue)
Other Income
Fiscal Year
192017– 18 202018– 212019– 222020– 232021– 2022–
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Source: VTA’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for fiscal years 2017– 18 through 2022– 23.

As the figure shows, a very small percentage of VTA’ s total revenue is operating revenue, which is a category that includes its fare revenue. Instead, VTA primarily relies on sales tax revenue as well as state and federal grants to maintain its operations. The degree to which VTA relies on sales tax revenue ( non operating revenue) is common among its peers. Among the five agencies to which we compared VTA, only one—TriMet—did not rely on sales tax as a revenue source.

TriMet instead relies on payroll and self employment taxes that it uses in similar proportion to the sales taxes used by other agencies. Three of the other four agencies relied on sales tax revenue as the source for at least 50 percent of their annual revenue. Further, VTA maintains a sales tax revenue stabilization reserve specifically dedicated to sales tax revenue shortfalls, ensuring that itis at least partially insulated from the effects of economic downturns.
40 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
The more concerning element of VTA’ s dependence
on sales tax revenue is that the revenue is
time limited. VTA’s sales tax revenue is generated
from four sales tax measures, three of which have
sunset dates, as the text box describes. In fiscal
year 2022– 23, revenue from these three sales tax
measures made up 69 percent of all of VTA’s sales
tax revenue. These revenue sources must eventually
be replaced if VTA is to maintain operations and
capital expenditures at present levels. The earliest
expiration date of these measures occurs in 2036.

Although the expiration of the first of these sales
tax measures is 12 years from now, there are
two compelling reasons why VTA should begin
planning to identify and generate its replacement
revenue sources now. First, if VTA determines
that it wants to replace the existing measure with
another sales tax, it will need to go through a
potentially time consuming process of drafting
language for such a measure that it believes
voters will approve, placing that measure on the
ballot, and gaining voter approval. The California
Constitution requires that such tax measures
be approved by at least two thirds of the voters.

The longer VTA waits before deciding whether it
wants to pursue a replacement sales tax measure, the less time it has to address the potential failure of such a measure to garner the required level of support. Secondly, VTA relies on sales tax revenue to fund its capital projects and support long term efforts to maintain an adequate state of repair of its infrastructure and equipment.

These projects can be in development for many years before beginning construction, and uncertainty about the availability of funding could hamper VTA’s efforts to plan these projects and continue to address its needs. The existing Measure A sales tax is a demonstration of this principle. VTA has used the sales tax measure to fund multiple capital projects. Although it was approved by voters in 2000, Measure A did not take effect until 2006, when a different sales tax measure was scheduled to expire.

Two studies since 2018, both commissioned by VTA, have advised VTA to identify alternate revenue sources beyond sales tax revenue. In general, these studies were prompted by VTA’s expectation that it may face deficit spending in future fiscal years. Although that scenario has generally not occurred, the studies show that VTA is aware of recommendations to diversify its revenue sources. According to its chief financial officer ( CFO), VTA is still exploring additional revenue sources to replace the aging sales tax measures and has not yet identified the amount of additional funding that it will need. The CFO noted that VTA is exploring additional funding through the expansion of its express lanes system ( which generates toll revenue), the renewal of sales tax measures, and transit oriented development of its real estate holdings. For example, a March 2023 report on the estimated value of the private VTA Sales Tax Measures and Their Sunset Dates
VTA relies on four sales tax measures for the majority of its revenue.
1976 Measure A: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for the continued operation and development of transit service in Santa Clara County. No sunset date.
2000 Measure A: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for
various transportation- related expenses, including the expansion of bus and light rail service throughout Santa Clara County and the purchase of vehicles for senior and disabled passenger access. Sunset date is March 31, 2036. 2008 Measure B: A 1/8-cent sales tax authorized to
operate, maintain, and improve the BART extension.

Sunset date is June 30, 2042.
2016 Measure B: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for
various transportation- related expenses, including road and highway improvements, completion of the BART extension
through downtown San Jose, improvements to bicycle and
pedestrian safety, and increased Caltrain capacity.

Sunset date is March 31, 2047.

Source: Santa Clara County ballot measures.
41CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
development of VTA’s properties noted that further development of its real estate holdings, including commercial and residential development, could generate roughly 30 million in annual revenue for VTA by 2050.

Although VTA could also reduce its reliance on sales tax revenue by accessing more revenue through the fares paid by users of its transit system, the CFO indicated that it has not fully evaluated this option. The percentage of operating expenses that a transit agency covers with user fares is known as the farebox recovery ratio. We used fare and operating expense data from the National Transit Database ( NTD), which is managed by the Federal Transit Administration ( FTA), to calculate the farebox recovery ratio for VTA and the five peer transit agencies we reviewed. As Figure 9 shows, from fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22, VTA has had one of the lowest farebox recovery ratios. We acknowledge the balance VTA needs to achieve between keeping fares affordable to be providing a public service and subsidizing its operations through fare revenue. Nonetheless, without a full study of the issue— including examinations of how much ridership is affected by rates and whether rates could be increased without unacceptable losses in ridership—VTA cannot know for certain whether itis already at an optimal balancing point or whether, like its peers, it can cover a larger percentage of its operating costs with fare revenue.

Figure9
VTA’s Farebox Cost Recovery Ratio Is Among the Lowest of Its Peers Fiscal Year
2021
2 2
2020
2 1
2019
2 0
2018
1 9
2017
1 8
2016
1 7
2015
1 6
2014
1 5
2013
1 4
2012
1 3
2011
1 2
2010
1 1
2009
1 0
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35%
VTA’s farebox recovery percentage
Range amongpeer agencies
Percentage of Total Operating Costs Covered by Fares
Source: National Transit Database transit agency data, fiscal years 2009– 10 through 2021– 22. Data for fiscal year 2022– 23 were not available. 42 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
We found that despite the volatility in its sources of revenue, VTA’s pension plans are generally ingood condition, and its pension costs pose a low risk to its financial stability.

VTA has two defined benefit pension plans: the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Amalgamated Transit Union Pension Plan (ATU Plan) and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System ( CalPERS) pension plan. These pension plans offer retirement, disability, and death benefits for qualifying retired employees. VTA also has an Other Post Employment Benefits ( OPEB) plan, a defined benefit health plan that offers health benefits to its retired employees, including paid contributions toward retiree health plans.

We reviewed VTA’s pension plans and OPEB funding levels by determining their funding ratio, which is the value of pension assets divided by its accrued liabilities.

A funding ratio of 100 percent means that a plan has enough assets to cover its liabilities. According to VTA’s fiscal year 2022–23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), its OPEB trust has a funded ratio of 130 percent and, thus, is a low risk because its assets are able to fully cover its liabilities. However, its ATU plan and CalPERS plan have a combined funded ratio of 72 percent, which can pose a higher risk to its financial sustainability because the plans are not fully funded. Nonetheless, as the rest of this section details, VTA is adhering to practices that reduce this risk.

VTA’s pension and OPEB funding practices generally align with established best practices. To provide reasonable assurance that the cost of employee benefits will be funded in a sustainable manner, the GFOA recommends that, on at least a biennial basis, governments obtain an actuarially determined contribution to serve as the basis for its employer contributions. VTA receives an annual actuarial valuation that determines its contributions for its ATU and OPEB plans. VTA’s contributions for its CalPERS plan are determined by CalPERS.

The GFOA also recommends that governments contribute the full employer contribution amount each year in order to further promote the sustainability of their pension plans. Our review of VTA’s audited financial statements and its actuarially determined contribution amounts found that VTA has met or exceeded its recommended contribution to its ATU plan from fiscal years 2019– 20 through 2022– 23. Similarly, its ACFR states that VTA made the actuarially determined contributions to its CalPERS plan in the same fiscal years. Since the actuarially determined contributions take into consideration the need to finance unfunded pension liabilities, VTA safeguards against future financial instability by making these contributions in full.

Further, the amount of these contributions does not pose a high risk to VTA’s overall operations. When their pension and OPEB contributions are high, governments are at significant risk of needing to curtail other services or spending so that they can meet the pension and OPEB obligations. However, VTA’s contributions represented very low percentages of its annual transit revenue in fiscal year 2022–23: about 5 percent for pension contributions and less than 1 percent for OPEB funding.

VTA’s required pension contributions are likely to increase in the near future before they subsequently decrease over time. VTA’s 2024 actuarial valuation of its ATU pension plan noted VTA’s employer contributions are projected to increase 43CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
through 2027. However, the 2024 valuation also noted that VTA’s employer contribution rates have declined over the past decade as its employees increased their contribution rates. VTA’s pension manager had an overall positive assessment of VTA’s pensions’ financial condition and expected that by continuing to make fully actuarially determined contributions, VTA will eventually fully fund the pensions.

The pension manager also noted that VTA has made changes to how it calculates the cost of its unfunded liabilities over time in its ATU pension plan in order to reduce its unfunded liabilities over a 20 year period, and he added that it expects these changes will lead to a decline in required contribution amounts in the future.

VTA Has Projected Its Long Term Operational and Capital Needs in General Alignment With Best Practices
Guidance on financial planning for government agencies indicates that agencies should prepare financial plans that address their long term ability to maintain operations and make investments in capital projects. The FTA has issued guidance to transit agencies about how to develop a financial plan in accordance with federal expectations. One of those expectations is that a transit agency’s financial plan should include long term plans and forecasts for the agency’s revenues and costs to demonstrate that the agency anticipates having adequate revenue to pay for its costs. By developing these forecasts, an agency can demonstrate that it expects to be financially viable several years into the future.

In addition to the FTA guidance, the GFOA recommends that governments develop a range of possible forecast outcomes by using different scenarios. According to the GFOA, preparing projections under different assumptions, such as assumptions about economic conditions, permits decision makers to consider the mix of revenue that would be necessary to provide various services. Similarly, the GFOA says that multiple expense projections can clearly identify the impact of different scenarios.

We focused our assessment of VTA’s long term financial forecasting on one of VTA’ s most significant funds and on the capital program that it is in part responsible for funding. The VTA Transit fund ( transit fund) has a fiscal year 2023–24 operating budget of approximately $ 600 million, and itfunded more than two thirds of its operating activities—including its labor costs—in fiscal year 2023–24. Moreover, the transit fund contributes revenue to the VTA Transit Capital Program (transit capital program). The transit capital program helps VTA maintain capital infrastructure, keep capital assets in a state of good repair, and invest in improvements that are meant to enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the transit system. The total appropriation for the transit capital program in VTA’s biennial budget for fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25 is $163 million, of which the transit fund is budgeted to provide approximately $65 million.

In both of these areas, VTA has adopted most of the recommended practices for long term forecasting that we reviewed. Most importantly, VTA produces long term forecasts for both the transit fund’s operating revenues and expenses and the transit capital program’s funding needs. For the transit fund, VTA develops a two year budget for the fund’s revenues and expenses in its biennial budget and, using those 44 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
two fiscal years as its base, projects the fund’ s revenues and expenses over the next eight fiscal years. VTA’ s projections account for factors that may affect sources of revenue and expenses, such as anticipated sporting events and other recreational activities that could increase ridership and, in turn, affect VTA fare revenues.

For the transit capital program, VTA develops a long term forecast for the program as part of its SCIP. The SCIP identifies, within projected funding constraints, the program’s funding needs and expected expenses over the next 20 years. By developing multiyear forecasts, VTA enhances its ability to assess whether it will have adequate revenue to pay for transit service expenses and to finance capital projects several years into the future.

VTA also adhered to the GFOA’s recommendation to identify and clearly explain major assumptions used to inform its forecasts. For example, in its biennial budget, VTA assumes for the transit fund that ridership levels— which drive transit fare revenue— will increase between fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25 but remain approximately 10 percent lower than pre pandemic levels. VTA explains in its budget document that although it expects that ridership will likely increase, hybrid work and telecommuting by businesses and schools may prevent transit ridership from making a full recovery to pre pandemic levels. Similar to the transit fund’s operating forecast, the SCIP identifies major relevant assumptions used to develop the forecast for the transit capital program, including the funding needs for future capital asset improvement projects— such as bus fleet electrification—and the maintenance required for the ongoing operation of light rail services.

The GFOA’ s guidance indicates that by developing multiple financial forecasts for its revenues and expenses, governments can better determine their needs under different economic realities. Consistent with this recommended practice, VTA develops three forecasts for the transit capital program, which it calls the low, medium, and high scenarios. Each forecast reflects the program’ s needs under different funding scenarios. Each funding scenario also describes the implications the forecast would have on VTA’s ability to maintain and replace its capital assets. For example, the SCIP explains that the forecast reflecting the “ medium” scenario—which the board ultimately directed staff to pursue in future plans and budgets—could in part allow the agency to replace bus fleets and light rail corridor electrification assets in the near term while maintaining assets on average in a state of adequate or good repair over a 20 year period. Because VTA develops multiple forecasts for the transit capital program, the board can develop a thorough understanding of the actions the agency must take to maintain the program’s long term viability.

For its transit fund revenues, VTA received from an external contractor three long term forecasts of sales tax revenue under different economic scenarios. VTA used the “most likely” scenario provided by the contractor to develop the forecast for the 1976 sales tax and other major sources of sales tax related revenues generated for the transit fund. Because sales tax—an inherently uncertain revenue source— constitutes more than 85 percent of the transit fund’s budgeted revenues, VTA’s review of multiple revenue forecasts helps to ensure that it considers potential scenarios that may influence its ability to support its operations several years into the future.
45CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
However, VTA does not develop multiple forecasts for the transit fund’s operating expenses, which may limit VTA’s insight into the long term outlook for the transit fund.

According to staff responsible for assembling the long term forecast, VTA develops only one forecast for its operating expenses based on a single set of assumptions.

As a result, VTA is unable to determine what the transit fund’s operating expenses might be under different scenarios. For example, VTA does not consider varied degrees of staff vacancies and therefore cannot know the impact of those scenarios on its spending. It also lacks insight into the impact of fuel price spikes or declines on its ability to continue funding other budget priorities.

Further, VTA’s single expense projection does not provide sufficient information to understand the impact of capital investments itis making. We reviewed whether VTA’s expense projections anticipate operation and maintenance costs that will not occur until future budget cycles and found that VTA does not incorporate such costs.

For example, VTA’s forecast does not account for the $2 million in maintenance costs that VTA anticipates EBRC will incur on an annual basis once it becomes operational in 2029. Accordingly, VTA’s forecast excludes factors that are likely to influence the transit fund’s long term viability.

VTA staff responsible for developing the transit fund forecast agreed that it would be beneficial to develop multiple expense scenarios. In January 2024, VTA entered into an agreement with a contractor to develop a new financial model that should allow VTA to develop multiple forecasts of its revenues and expenses under different economic assumptions. The deputy director controller stated that these multiple forecasts will give VTA a stronger understanding of the revenues that it must raise to cover future expenses, something he acknowledged that VTA was limited in its ability to do with its current forecasting. He further stated that VTA intends to implement the new financial model by the time it begins developing its fiscal year 2026– 27 biennial budget in the second half of 2024.

VTA Has Not Consistently Implemented Budget Monitoring Practices in Its Financial Decision Making
According to the GFOA, regular monitoring of budgetary performance can provide an early warning of potential problems and time for decision makers to consider actions they may need to take if there are major deviations between budgeted and actual spending. The GFOA recommends that governments have mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the adopted budget and observes that a common mechanism is to conduct monthly or quarterly reviews of trends in actual expenditures and revenues compared to its budget. Further, the GFOA recommends that governments incorporate an examination of performance measures and linkages to financial outcomes into their budget monitoring processes. For a transit agency, these performance measures could include industry metrics such as farebox recovery rates or operating costs per trip. Finally, the GFOA states that it is important to establish formal processes for implementing budget monitoring responsibilities. 46 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
VTA indicated that it uses a variety of regular budgetary reviews. VTA’s deputy director controller stated that VTA’s monitoring process consists of day to day tracking of expenditures by budget analysts within each division. Further, the deputy director controller and VTA’s budget manager said that VTA also conducts monthly reviews of spending trends and budget deviations. A key practice that the deputy director controller explained is the quarterly review of actual spending against budgeted spending. According to the deputy director controller, on a quarterly basis the budget department creates reports for each division regarding their budgeted versus actual expenditures ( variance reports), and the budget department staff meets with the leadership from each division to review the reports and discuss any variances.

When we asked the CFO how VTA’s board and staff respond to deviations between budgeted forecasts and the variance reports, he responded that VTA does not have a policy related to the variance reports that would require a specific action by VTA staff when deviations exceed a given threshold. The CFO said that the board makes inquiries of VTA staff related to the variance reports during board meetings, but he could not recall an example during his tenure of when the board requested a specific action as a result of the quarterly variance reports.

VTA could not demonstrate that it consistently generated the quarterly variance reports or held these meetings with division leadership. We requested a copy of the quarterly variance reports for three divisions from fiscal years 2021–22 and 2022–23— a total of 24 reports. However, VTA could provide only two of these reports, both from the second quarter of fiscal year 2022–23. According to the deputy director controller, half of the quarterly meetings with divisional leadership were never scheduled, often because VTA did not have a budget manager at the time. In other cases, the deputy director controller explained that he believed the meetings occurred but could not locate the related variance reports because of recent retirements from VTA. Without regular monitoring of budgetary performance, VTA is limited in its ability to identify and respond to deviations between budgeted and actual spending.

In contrast, VTA was able to demonstrate that it regularly presents agencywide variance reports to the board. We reviewed the meeting minutes from the Administration and Finance Committee from November 2020 through November 2023 and confirmed that VTA staff reported quarterly on agencywide operating budget variances, and that committee members generally discussed the reports. For example, in the committee’s review of the statement of revenues and expenses from the first quarter of fiscal year 2020–21, committee members discussed VTA’ s use of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding and the degree to which the funding would cover an anticipated operating budget deficit.

VTA has not adopted another recommended best practice for monitoring budget performance: the use of financial metrics as a part of budgetary oversight. VTA’ s CFO confirmed that the agency does not have specific financial metrics thatit tracks or uses to report to the board about how well VTA is performing. Our review of eight board meetings from July 2022 through December 2022 confirmed that VTA staff generally did not present to the board updates on financial metrics, such as VTA’s farebox recovery ratio. According to VTA’s CFO, he is working with the finance department to determine the financial metrics and related goals on which the 47CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
agency intends to report to the board. The CFO also stated that VTA intends to start delivering quarterly reports on these metrics and goals to the board by July 2024. He added that VTA intends to update the metrics and goals on an ongoing basis.

VTA is likely to find that tracking financial metrics improves its ability to enhance its operations. As we describe earlier, VTA’s farebox recovery ratio is notably lower than that of its peer agencies. However, without regular updates on this metric, the board is left without reliable and easy access to information that could prompt itto reconsider VTA’s fares. Similarly, the board would likely benefit from being regularly informed about how well VTA performs compared to its peers across other metrics.

We reviewed the operating expenses that VTA and its peer agencies reported to the NTD for fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22. These expenses included labor costs, costs for vehicle fuel and other materials, and utilities. We also reviewed service hours and ridership data that these agencies reported to the NTD. Using these data, we calculated the total operating cost per passenger trip and the total operating cost per hour that a transit vehicle is in service. 8 As Figure 10 shows, VTA’s operational costs across these two metrics were higher than any of the five peer agencies we reviewed. VTA’s operating costs per trip peaked in fiscal year 2020–21 at $ 33. 11 per trip—meaning that each trip taken by a passenger cost VTA about $33 in operating costs. The height of this peak was likely driven by the effects of the pandemic, but VTA’s costs had nonetheless been higher than its peers’ costs for some years before the pandemic affected its operations. These high operating cost metrics indicate that VTA is not operating as efficiently as its peers, which warrants VTA’ s further review to assess the causes. However, because VTA staff do not regularly report these types of data to the board, the board has a limited ability to monitor VTA’s performance and direct VTA staff to identify and address causes.

Regular monitoring of these operational metrics is likely to be especially important to VTA as it continues to address declines in ridership. Metrics such as operational cost per trip measure how effective VTA is with its resources, which becomes more important as itfaces changes in demand for its services. When we reviewed the number of passenger trips per service hour—essentially a measure of how many passengers are served compared to how many total hours VTA’s vehicles are available to transport passengers— we found that in the four years leading up to the pandemic, VTA had a lower number of passengers per hour than most of its peers. This metric indicates that VTA may have been offering more transit service than its ridership required.

Nonetheless, in the post pandemic recovery, while ridership levels could still rise over time, it is likely too early to know whether VTA will continue to compare unfavorably to its peers. VTA’s chief operating officer told us that both VTA staff and VTA’s board are more focused on bringing the level of ridership up rather than the level of service down to meet reduced demand. Figure 11 shows that the trend in VTA’s ridership was generally declining over the past nine years. As did its peers, VTA experienced a sharp decline in ridership due to the effects of the pandemic.

Since then, ridership has not returned to its pre pandemic levels. 8 For passenger trips, we used the metric unlinked passenger trips, which counts each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle regardless of how many vehicles the passenger uses to reach their destination. For the hours that vehicles were in service, we used the metric vehicle revenue hours, which measures the number of hours that vehicles are in revenue- generating service.
48 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Figure10
VTA’s Operating Costs per Trip and per Operating Hour Have Consistently Been Higher Than Its Peers’ Costs Fiscal Year
2021
2 2
2020
2 1
2019
2 0
2018
1 9
2017
1 8
2016
1 7
2015
1 6
2014
1 5
2013
1 4
2012
1 3
2011
1 2
2010
1 1
2009
1 0
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Range among
peer agencies
VTA
Operating Cost per Operating Hour
Fiscal Year
2021
2 2
2020
2 1
2019
2 0
2018
1 9
2017
1 8
2016
1 7
2015
1 6
2014
1 5
2013
1 4
2012
1 3
2011
1 2
2010
1 1
2009
1 0
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Range among
peer agencies
VTA
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip
Source: NTD transit agency data, fiscal years 2009– 10 through 2021– 22. Data for fiscal year 2022– 23 were not available.

Note: Operating cost per passenger trip is the cost VTA incurs to provide each trip taken by a passenger. For example, each trip taken by a passenger in fiscal year 2020– 21 on average cost VTA approximately $ 33. Operating cost per operating hour is the cost to VTA to run its transit infrastructure for an hour. For example, in fiscal year 2020– 21 it cost VTA about $ 277 to provide an hour of service. 49CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Figure 11
VTA’s Ridership Has Declined for Years, Even Before the Start of the Pandemic Fiscal Year
152013– 14 162014– 172015– 182016– 192017– 202018– 212019– 222020– 2021– 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour
Fiscal Year
152013– 14 162014– 172015– 182016– 192017– 202018– 212019– 222020– 2021– 0 10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000 Ridership
The pandemic- related decline
in ridership begins here.

Source: NTD transit agency data, fiscal years 2013– 14 through 2021– 22. Data for fiscal year 2022– 23 were not available. 50 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Finally, according to its budget manager, VTA has not documented any of its operating budget monitoring practices in written procedures. This lack of documentation raises the risk that its staff will not perform oversight activities.

Documentation of an agency’s procedures promotes various benefits: the documented procedures can clearly communicate expectations, helping to reduce inconsistency in practice. Documented procedures can also assist agencies experiencing staff turnover, because the documented procedures can guide newer staff who may not be as familiar with VTA’s expected practices. In fact, VTA has experienced some turnover among its financial leadership in recent years—including its CFO, deputy director controller, and budget manager. In light of the benefits of documenting procedures and the inconsistency we found in VTA’s budget oversight practices, it would benefit VTA to formalize its expectations for budget oversight activities.

VTA Publicly Reports the Recommended Financial Information To promote fiscal transparency, GFOA recommends that government agencies make high quality financial information available on the agency’ s website. The GFOA also recommends that governments provide opportunities during the budget process for obtaining the input of stakeholders. Further, the GFOA recommends that governments obtain and publish independent expert reviews of their finances, such as annual external audits, to improve credibility with the public. The GFOA notes that when citizens have trust in government, they will be more willing to pay taxes, participate in community governance, and invest in the community.

VTA’s biennial budget and its ACFR, which presents its comprehensive financial position, are available on its public website, including previous reports as far back as fiscal year 1995–96. VTA’ s biennial budget contains long term financial forecasts and the underlying assumptions made in the forecasts. VTA’s budget process includes the opportunity for the public to comment on its proposed budget.

For example, an April 2023 board meeting included opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed budget for fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25. The proposed budget is also presented to various advisory committees to receive their input and recommendation— including the Policy Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee, both of which reviewed the proposed budget in May 2023, approximately one month before the board adopted the biennial budget. We reviewed VTA’s ACFRs for fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23 and determined that an independent auditor issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements in each year, meaning that the auditor concluded that VTA presented fairly, in all material respects, its financial position and changes in financial position for those years.
51CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
VTA Established Broad Strategic Goals Without Setting Specific Actions or Monitoring Processes
Strategic planning is an important process that can help an organization define its goals, establish how it will measure performance, and outline strategies that it will use to reach its goals. The TCRP states that
strategic planning is a management tool used to
define an agency’ s role, establish goals, measure
performance, and guide business processes.

Despite the importance of strategic planning,
VTA’s strategic plan is outdated, and VTA is
currently operating with an alternate list of
initiatives created by its CEO. VTA last developed
a strategic plan in 2016, and that plan applied
to the period of 2017 through 2022. In addition,
in 2021, the CEO created VTA Forward, a list of
initiatives that the CEO indicated was originally
created as its strategic response to internal
and external factors affecting VTA. The CEO
stated that multiple crises since the start of the
pandemic in early 2020 highlighted systemic
issues that hindered the organization from
moving forward. VTA Forward is focused on
strengthening VTA and preparing itto take on
future opportunities and challenges. The CEO
told us that these two documents— the outdated
strategic plan and VTA Forward— were the best
source of VTA’s vision and goals. However, she
acknowledged that the strategic plan is outdated
and said that most executive leaders at VTA do
not use the plan. We refer to these two documents
collectively as VTA’s strategic planning documents.

Moreover, VTA’s strategic planning documents
do not contain all of the important elements of a
strategic plan. For example, in the two documents
combined, VTA has listed a total of 12 goals
that it wants to achieve, as shown in the
text box. However, all but one of these goals
lack measurable objectives that would allow
VTA or the public to determine whether it was
making progress toward its goals. Further, VTA’s
strategic plan contains a goal to “optimize transit
travel times and ensure they are preserved and
continually improved.” Yet the plan lacks any
content on how VTA will determine whether itis
making progress in this area. The one goal with a
measurable objective is to ensure frequent service,
VTA’s Strategic Goals

1. Optimize transit travel times and ensure they are
preserved and continually improved.

2. Ensure that transit service, especially in core areas, is frequent ( every 15 minutes or better).

3. Provide customer- focused information systems, and
preserve and enhance reliable operations through
transit- preferential treatments.

4. Create concepts, plans, designs, programs, and policies to optimize current conditions and identify and seize
new opportunities.

5. Deliver projects and programs on time and within
budget, and creatively pursue new construction,
operational, and business practices that make VTA more
efficient and successful.

6. Provide a comprehensive line of services, technical
support, funding programs, and mobility solutions
to the public and Congestion Management Program
Member Agencies.

7. Address roadway congestion and all modes of
transportation system operations by collecting and
analyzing data, developing and applying technology,
refining current practices, and implementing new
planning and management tools.

8. Retain and increase the value of existing infrastructure and services, and optimize the utility of new
investments and services.

9. Improve and expand mobility options by innovatively
applying technology, planning, design, construction,
operations, and business techniques.

10. Steady the organization and create clarity surrounding urgent initiatives in building VTA’s team, retaining VTA talent, and restoring VTA service.

11. Elevate VTA staff and services with an emphasis on
developing VTA workforce and delivering multi-modal
projects and programs in an equitable and sustainable way.

12. Reach VTA’s full potential through discernable culture change work and transformative community building
that raises the transportation bar in the region.

Source: VTA’s strategic planning documents.
52 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
with a measurable objective of transit availability every 15 minutes. The CEO agreed that VTA’s strategic planning documents were missing goals with specific actions that VTA would take to achieve the goals. A related deficiency is that the strategic planning documents also do not identify the performance measures that VTA will use to determine whether it achieves the stated goals.

VTA had expected to complete additional plans that could have created these missing measurable objectives. VTA’s strategic plan and biennial budgets indicate that the agency planned to measure its success in meeting its strategic goals through implementation of goals and metrics that would be included in a business plan.

However, VTA never completed the business plan. With respect to the goals in VTA Forward, VTA also did not create measurable objectives by which it could determine whether it was achieving any of the stated goals in that list. The CEO indicated that factors such as the pandemic and aftereffects of a shooting incident at a VTA rail yard in 2021 affected the development of the business plans. She agreed that VTA lacks a performance measurement system for ensuring that actions are implemented and that VTA achieves the desired results.

Further, VTA’s strategic planning documents do not always include specific strategies that VTA will use to achieve its goals. VTA’s 2016 strategic plan contains no specific statements about the activities that VTA plans to engage in to achieve its goals. In fact, the plan explicitly states that it exists to guide the development of the business plans that would contain these strategies. In contrast, VTA Forward includes several statements about the actions that VTA planned to take to achieve the goals in that list. For example, to achieve the goal of developing its workforce, VTA described taking actions such as reforming its leadership development program and identifying and growing the leadership team’s strengths through coaching.

Without a strategic plan that includes measurable objectives, related strategies, and defined performance measures, VTA is hindered from effectively ensuring that it meets its organizational goals, including goals valued by the public. According to the CEO, by November 2024 VTA plans to create a business plan for its outdated strategic plan and by 2026 create a new strategic plan. However, we question VTA’s planned approach. As we note earlier, the CEO acknowledged that VTA’s strategic plan is outdated and that executive leaders no longer refer to the plan. Additionally, itis unclear how much value VTA will derive from adopting a business plan for its expired strategic plan only to then replace the business plan approximately two years later with a new strategic plan. In response, the CEO stated that VTA needs a framework for the next two years and that a new strategic plan would take a longer time to create. Nonetheless, given the age of the outdated plan, it would be valuable for VTA to begin the creation of its new strategic plan as soon as possible to address its current needs.
53CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
VTA’s CEO Evaluation Process Does Not Align With Best Practices Organizations can promote accountability and effective performance by regularly reviewing how well staff fulfill their assigned responsibilities. For the CEO, these assigned responsibilities include ensuring the proper administration of all affairs of VTA. The APTA indicates that, by evaluating a CEO, a board can foster a productive relationship with the CEO. This relationship can in turn benefit both the agency and the people that it serves. The APTA also states that the evaluation process is effective when itincludes agreement between the board and the CEO on job expectations and measurable outcomes that the board will use to evaluate the CEO.

VTA has a policy that establishes its process for evaluating its CEO. When VTA adopted its CEO evaluation policy in 2020, it noted that over the previous years it had evaluated the CEO inconsistently and that in some cases it had not always met its contractual requirements for review of the CEO. Therefore, the purpose of the 2020 policy was to correct VTA’s approach to evaluating its CEO. According to the policy, the board’s Governance and Audit Committee should receive an annual self appraisal from the CEO, and the board chair should also collect input from each director about the CEO’s performance and present that input to the committee in closed session. The committee is then required topresent a confidential recommendation to the board about the CEO’ s performance to facilitate the board’s discussion of the CEO’s performance in closed session.

State open meeting laws authorize the board to conduct its evaluations of the CEO’s performance in closed session. Under those laws, information relating to performance evaluations that is acquired by being present in closed session is confidential and cannot be disclosed. Because VTA evaluates the CEO’s performance in closed session meetings, we cannot disclose any information about the evaluations obtained from the meetings.

According to VTA’s policy, the CEO’s performance evaluation is based on performance objectives chosen by VTA’s Governance and Audit Committee. However, the policy does not explicitly require these objectives to be communicated to the CEO. Further, the board’s chair confirmed thatthe CEO’s evaluation process is not based on documented goals or performance metrics. As a result, VTA’s policy likely limits the board’s ability to assess how well the CEO has helped VTA to achieve its stated goals and benefit the community.

VTA should take action to correct these deficiencies in its evaluation process after it has addressed issues with its strategic plan. As we note earlier, VTA lacks a current strategic plan with measurable objectives. Because the CEO is responsible for leading VTA, any future evaluation of the CEO should include a comparison of VTA’s performance against such objectives. In October 2023, VTA entered into an agreement with a contractor to develop a new, documented process for evaluating the CEO’s performance. According to the board chair, the new evaluation process will include an annual performance review by the board of the CEO based on performance goals and metrics related to VTA’s objectives and strategic goals. The chair also said that the board and the CEO will meet on an annual basis to review the goals and update them as necessary to reflect the agency’s objectives. Because the new evaluation process will enhance the board’s ability to assess the CEO’s performance based on performance goals and metrics, VTA’s board should formally approve the new process and document itin VTA’s administrative code. 54 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Recommendations
To help ensure financial viability, VTA should determine by June 2025 the extent to which it can rely on revenue sources that are less uncertain than sales tax revenue.

In reaching this determination, VTA should consider taking action to increase its farebox recovery ratio by, for example, raising fares or cutting expenses. VTA should then pursue any additional revenue sources itidentifies to the extent possible.

To improve VTA’s forecasts of future financial scenarios, VTA should begin forecasting multiple expense scenarios for its transit fund by December 2024 and use those scenarios to create a projection of expenses to present to the board. Further, it should incorporate into these projections any anticipated increases in operational costs because of capital projects.

To ensure that VTA is consistent in its budget monitoring and oversight, VTA should adopt documented procedures by December 2024 that include, at a minimum, the following:

A process that VTA will use to examine variances between budgeted and actual amounts of revenues and expenses.

The use of quarterly variance reports by both the board and VTA staff, and expectations for appropriate actions to be taken when significant deviations are identified.

Assignments that show which staff will be responsible for performing and reviewing variance analyses, and ensure continuity of these reviews when there is turnover in key management positions.

To ensure that itis informed about VTA’s performance against key financial indicators, the board should require VTA staff to regularly report on specified financial metrics—including its farebox recovery ratio, trips per revenue hour, and operating cost per revenue hour—beginning in December 2024 or sooner.

To ensure that VTA has a current strategic plan that incorporates best practices, VTA should create a comprehensive strategic plan by December 2025 that includes goals, measurable objectives, strategies, and performance measures to track progress.

It should also adopt procedures to ensure monitoring of progress on the strategic plan and regular reporting to the board.

To help ensure that the CEO is guiding VTA to achieve its goals, the board should formally adopt by June 2025 the new evaluation process for its CEO and amend VTA’s Administrative Code to document the process. The evaluation process should include performance expectations for its CEO based on the agency’s objectives, including the goals in VTA’s most current strategic plan. All subsequent updates to the evaluation process and its goals and metrics should be formally approved by the board.
55CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
56 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Other Areas We Reviewed
To address the audit objectives approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee Audit Committee), we also compared the board’s responsibilities to those of its peer agencies. Additionally, to provide information about a significant capital project, we reviewed information about VTA’s response to concerns expressed by the FTA over the second phase of VTA’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) capital project.

The VTA Board’ s Responsibilities Are Generally Consistent With Best Practices and Are Similar to the Responsibilities of Peer Agencies’ Boards The responsibilities of VTA’ s board align with best practices and are generally comparable to the responsibilities of the boards of the peer agencies. According to research sponsored by the FTA, the responsibilities of a transit board include making policy, upholding fiduciary duties, and overseeing the agency’ s CEO. We reviewed state law and relevant agency documentation and found that VTA’s board is required to exercise these responsibilities. For example, according to the state law that establishes VTA, the board is responsible for determining VTA policy, adopting an annual budget, establishing rates for transit service, and determining the transit facilities that VTA should acquire and construct. As we stated earlier in the report, VTA’s directors are also charged with several fiduciary responsibilities, including the responsibility to act in the best interest of the residents of the county and disclose reportable financial interests.

Available public records demonstrate that the boards of the peer agencies are often required to exercise similar responsibilities. For example, the statute that establishes SacRT states that the board is the district’s legislative body, responsible for adopting an annual budget and adopting rules and regulations that govern the use of the district’s transit facilities. Further, CapMetro’s bylaws require that directors act collectively on behalf of the board in the best interest of the agency. In addition, we found that each peer agency’s board is either required to, or has the authority to, appoint the agency’ s CEO. For example, the statute that establishes TriMet requires the board to select a general manager based in part on their past experience as a general manager. The publicly available documentation we reviewed did not make it clear whether VTA’s peer agency boards have responsibilities similar to the ones we describe earlier that position VTA’s board as the body responsible for evaluating the CEO’s performance.

VTA Has Worked With FTA to Address Federal Concerns About VTA’s BART Capital Project In 2000 Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, which included an extension of BART. The entire BART project is a 16 mile extension of the existing BART system. VTA is constructing and will own the project, and BART will maintain and operate service. VTA reports on its website that Phase I of the project opened for service in 2020. This phase extended service approximately 10 miles from Alameda County to North San José. We reviewed VTA’s project planning for Phase II BART project), an approximately six mile extension that will bring service through 57CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
three new underground stations in San José and end in the city of Santa Clara.

According to VTA’s auditor general’s report on the project, the budget and schedule for the BART project have grown over time. In April 2021, VTA estimated a cost of

6.9 billion and date to begin service in May 2030, with contingencies that could delay the start of service until September 2032.

FTA has assigned a project management oversight contractor (oversight contractor) to assess VTA’s project planning and federal funding applications. In July 2021, the oversight contractor issued a report evaluating VTA’s risk assessment, project scope, schedule, and capital cost estimate for the BART project. The report included concerns that VTA’s project planning was too optimistic for both the project cost and project schedule. The oversight contractor recommended that VTA increase the expected cost of the BART project by more than $2.2 billion, from $6.9 billion to more than $9.1 billion and push the expected date to begin service to June 2034.

According to the VTA manager in charge of the BART project (BART project manager), VTA does not have to report a specific corrective action plan describing how VTA will implement all of the oversight contractor’s recommendations. Instead, he explained that VTA works collaboratively with the oversight contractor to address ongoing concerns. VTA has been able to demonstrate that it has addressed some of the specific concerns that the contractor identified. For example, according to the contractor’ s project monitoring report, when VTA submitted an application to FTA for funding in October 2022, VTA’s cost estimate of $9.3 billion was greater than the $9.1 billion that the FTA’s contractor estimated more than a year prior. Further, VTA’s schedule estimate—with an estimated date to begin service of March 2033— was 15 months earlier than the contractor’ s recommended estimate. In its response to the contractor’ s 2021 assessment, VTA described differences of opinion related to a timeline for procuring a tunnel boring machine and the estimated tunneling rate as the primary reasons for differences in schedule estimates between VTA and the FTA’s contractor.

Despite the scheduling difference, FTA approved VTA’ s initial application for a federal funding program that, according to VTA, can supply funding of nearly

6.3 billion if VTA ultimately succeeds in satisfying all federal requirements. The BART project manager explained that the project’s progress through the FTA funding process is an indication of the confidence that the oversight contractor has that VTA is successfully addressing concerns. We concluded our audit fieldwork in April 2024. A report by the CFO to the board indicates that VTA submitted its application for the engineering phase of the federal funding process in March 2024.

In that report, VTA estimated the project to cost $12.7 billion with an estimated date to begin service of March 2039. According to the report, if FTA accepts VTA’s application for the engineering phase, VTA may then submit a final application to FTA for a full funding grant agreement.
58 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives.

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor
June 11, 2024
Staff: Bob Harris, Audit Principal
Ralph M. Flynn, Senior Auditor
Amanda Millen, MBA, Senior Auditor
Mike Carri
Nathan Drake
William Goltra
Alexis Hankins
Roxanna Jarvis
Lily Nuñez, MPP
Legal Counsel: Abigail Maurer
59CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
60 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Appendix A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Our Prior Audit Recommendations The Audit Committee requested that we evaluate VTA’ s implementation of recommendations from our July 2008 audit of VTA.9In Table A, we present these audit recommendations and their current implementation status.

Table A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Recommendations From Audit Report 2007 129 2007 129 AUDIT RECOMMENDATION CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS* Board Structure, Governance, and Strategic Planning
1 To promote stability in its leadership and bring the tenure of board members in line with that of comparable transit agencies, VTA should request the Legislature to amend its enabling statutes to allow for a four- year board term.

Not implemented
As discussed in this report, VTA’s term length is two years and not four, and VTA has decided to encourage appointing powers to reappoint directors rather than pursue a change to its term lengths. 2 VTA should monitor the effect of the governance changes approved by the board in May 2008 and determine whether additional changes to its governance structure are necessary. To this end, VTA should add board tenure to the performance measures it develops for its new strategic plan.

Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA’s strategic plan is outdated. Further, VTA’s strategic planning documents lack performance measures related to board tenure.
3 To demonstrate that it values the expertise of its advisory committees, VTA and its board should take actions to ensure that advisory committees are involved in the development of policy solutions. Such actions should include the following:
a. Reassessing and stating the purpose and role of each advisory committee.
b. Reviewing work plans for advisory committees to ensure the committees have an opportunity to review and provide input on issues in the early stages of development.
c. Providing the citizens committee with an opportunity to address the board at every meeting, similar to the opportunity provided to the policy committee.

Implemented
VTA has regularly updated the bylaws for each advisory committee, which include each committee’ s mission and purpose. The citizens advisory committee has a regular opportunity to address the board. Although our report notes that VTA did not involve advisory committees in the development of the SCIP, we noted that in most cases, committees were appropriately involved in policy review.

Additionally, the board approves the meeting minutes packages for advisory committee meetings during which the workplans are established.
4 VTA should implement its plan to create a comprehensive strategic plan and ensure that the new plan conforms to the practices recommended by the GFOA.

Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA’s strategic plan is outdated and does not adhere to best practices.

Project Management
5 To ensure adequate control over its project planning process, VTA should develop written policies and procedures for project planning and evaluation.

Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA does not have procedures for cost estimation which is a key element of project planning and management, but it is developing a project administration manual. 9 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: It Has Made Several Improvements in Recent Years, but Changes Are Still Needed, 2007 129, July 2008.
continued on next page . . .
61CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
2007 129 AUDIT RECOMMENDATION CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS* 6 To conform to GFOA recommended practices, VTA should create policies and procedures to clearly identify all project costs and revenues, and to estimate and have a plan for funding the operating costs resulting from capital projects.

Not current practice
VTA does not have written procedures related to identifying project operation and maintenance costs. Further, as described in this report, VTA does not identify operation and maintenance costs for all of its projects.
7 To achieve consistency in project monitoring, VTA should ensure that its project managers follow the construction administration manual or document when management has agreed to an exception.

Not current practice
According to VTA, it no longer uses its construction
administration manual.

Financial Planning and Oversight
8 To make best use of its resources, VTA should create regular processes in which fiscal resources communicates with other VTA divisions— especially the Engineering and Construction Division— regarding the cash needs of projects and activities. This communication process should include estimates of yearly project expenditures and regular updates to those projections based on actual results.

Not current practice
According to VTA, it had begun but has since stopped holding meetings between its fiscal team and project staff for these purposes. 9 VTA should update its capital budget to more fully report planned spending by year, capital carryover by source, and expected total project costs.

Implemented
As this report discusses, VTA presents this information to the board as part of its budget.
10 To better monitor capital spending, VTA should regularly compile and report to management information that tracks all capital projects and compares spending and project progress to original projections. Information should be broken down by project but should also include total project progress and spending by source of funds.

Not current practice
VTA does not compare its capital project costs to its original estimates or report variances from the original estimates to the board. 11 To ensure realistic long term financial planning, VTA should continue to update its planning tools and methodology and clearly explain assumptions that have material effects on overall forecasts.

Implemented
As noted in this report, VTA describes the major assumptions that impact its financial forecasts.

Source: Audit report 2007- 129; VTA documents and processes.

Note: This table does not include three recommendations from the report. All three of these recommendations asked VTA to continue plans it had to implement recommendations made by a consultant hired by VTA. Because the core of these recommendations were actions recommended by a third party and not the California State Auditor, we did not follow up on them during this audit.

We describe the implementation status as Not current practice in cases where VTA had previously demonstrated that it had addressed the recommendation, but this audit determined that VTA is not following the practices described in the recommendation. 62 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
Appendix B
Scope and Methodology
The Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to conduct an audit of VTA in relation to its governance structure, project planning and management, financial viability, and fiscal oversight. Table B lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them. Unless otherwise stated in the table or elsewhere in the report, statements and conclusions about items selected for review should not be projected to the population.

Table B
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and
regulations significant to the audit objectives.

Reviewed relevant state and federal laws and regulations related to the objectives listed below.
2 Assess VTA’ s governance structure and practices
to determine whether:
a. The roles and responsibilities of the VTA’s
board are comparable to that of other local
transportation authorities.
b. The VTA’s board and management appropriately
carry out their governance- related roles and
responsibilities, including their oversight of
agency funds and their implementation of
management controls designed to detect and
prevent waste, fraud, abuse, illegal conduct,
mismanagement, and conflicts of interest.
c. The VTA board member selection and tenure
practices are effective and whether they align
with state law and best practices. Determine the
effectiveness of current statutes and whether
the VTA could increase transparency related to
the selection of its board members. Consider
whether state law should be changed to
improve performance.
d. The VTA uses committees effectively and the
extent to which advisory committees are
involved in the development of policy.
e. The VTA relies on alternate board members, the
extent to which it did so, and whether the use of
alternates reduced board member attendance
and engagement. Further, assess the extent to
which the VTA’s use of alternates aligns with
best practices and good governance policies.
f. VTA board members perform their fiduciary
duties with a focus on the county overall or on
the city they may represent and the extent to
which members representing cities confer with
respective city staff and councils prior to votes.

Interviewed VTA staff and identified documentation outlining the board’ s roles and responsibilities.

Identified five peer agencies to VTA based on service population, operating expenses, number of directors, director selection method, director term lengths, and services provided. Compared their boards’ responsibilities with those of VTA’ s board.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to standards of ethics as well as conflict- of-interest prevention and detection.

Reviewed VTA board directors’ compliance with conflict- of-interest requirements and policies.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to board tenure requirements.

Reviewed board directors’ tenure data and the peer agencies’ tenure data.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed VTA’ s and peer agencies’ board member selection practices.

Attempted to review four appointing authority meetings, during which appointments were discussed or made, to determine the extent to which the appointments were transparent. One of these meetings was not public and therefore we only reviewed three meetings.

Reviewed the roles and responsibilities for each standing and advisory committee.

Identified five board- approved policies by reviewing significant policy actions taken by the board and choosing policies that represented the range of VTA’ s responsibilities.

Reviewed the five board- approved policies to determine whether relevant committees received the policies for consideration prior to board adoption.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed VTA’ s use of alternate directors.

Reviewed VTA’s attendance data to determine director attendance rates for January 2020 through June 2023.

For each of the five peer agencies, reviewed publicly available documentation and interviewed their staff to determine whether they have alternate board members.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices for ensuring that board members are aware of and adhere to their fiduciary duties.

Reviewed city council meetings occurring before five VTA policy decisions to determine whether VTA policy was discussed at the council meetings.

Interviewed directors to determine whether they discuss VTA policy with city staff or city council members.
continued on next page . . .
63CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
3 Review the VTA’s strategic planning by evaluating
the following:
a. VTA’s strategic planning process, including how
goals, objectives, and priorities are set and how
performance is measured.
b. Whether the VTA consistently met its strategic
planning goals and objectives.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to strategic planning, including how VTA sets strategic goals, objectives, and priorities.

Because VTA’s strategic plan did not include measurable objectives, we could not assess the extent to which VTA met its goals or objectives. 4 Evaluate the VTA’s project planning and oversight
by determining the following:
a. The adequacy of the VTA’s policies, procedures,
and practices related to project planning,
management, and monitoring.
b. The extent to which the VTA provided adequate
planning for a selection of large projects.
c. The accuracy of the VTA’s estimates for project
costs and timelines.
d. Whether the VTA could more efficiently and
effectively achieve project objectives through
the application of best practices.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to project planning and oversight of cost estimates, schedule estimates, and change control processes.

Selected two capital projects to review VTA’s approach to project selection. Compared VTA’s project selection practices against identified best practices.

Selected six capital projects by considering the status of project development, project cost with a focus on choosing higher cost projects, and type of project.

Reviewed the six VTA capital projects to determine whether VTA applied best practices for project planning and oversight, including whether the projects’ cost and schedule estimates were accurate.

Reviewed project documents related to Phase II of the BART project and interviewed VTA staff to determine the progress that VTA has made in addressing project risks identified in the FTA contractor’ s 2021 assessment.
5 Assess the VTA’s financial viability by determining
the following:
a. The VTA’s revenues, expenditures, and ridership
for the last four years.
b. Operating costs per trip for the last four years,
the number of passenger trips per revenue hour,
and farebox recovery. Compare the VTA’s results
in these categories to those of other similarly
situated local transit agencies.
c. The extent of financial planning for the next five
and ten years and whether the VTA considered
relevant factors during related planning.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to financial planning, including long- term financial forecasting.

Reviewed and assessed VTA financial planning documents and processes to determine the extent of VTA’s financial planning and whether VTA considered relevant factors during the planning process.

Reviewed the ACFRs for VTA and the five peer agencies for fiscal years 2017– 18 through 2022– 23 to identify revenues and expenditures.

Obtained National Transit Database data to calculate the trips per hour, cost per trip, and farebox recovery for VTA and the five peer agencies for fiscal years 2009– 10 through 2021– 22.
6 Review the VTA’s fiscal oversight by assessing
the following:
a. Its financial planning, reporting, and oversight
structure and processes.
b. The adequacy of its policies and procedures
concerning fiscal transparency.
c. The extent to which the capital budget reports
include data on total project costs, unspent
funds, and funding sources.
d. Whether VTA officials review quarterly
reports adequately and what actions the VTA
takes when it does not achieve forecasted
financial results.

Interviewed VTA staff, reviewed VTA’ s practices for budget oversight, and compared them to best practices.

Reviewed VTA’s fiscal transparency practices and compared them to established best practices.

Reviewed capital budget reports in the annual budget document to determine the extent to which they include data on total project costs, unspent funds, and funding sources.

Reviewed quarterly reports to determine how staff and the board respond to deviations between quarterly reports and financial forecasts. 7 To the extent possible, determine the extent to
which the VTA has created an agency culture
focused on effective and efficient performance
and compliance.

Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices regarding board and agency actions that encourage effective and efficient performance and compliance.

Determined how VTA updates the board and relevant standing committees regarding the agency’ s financial health and performance measures.

Reviewed VTA’s CEO evaluation process and compared it to best practices. 64 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101

AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
8 Evaluate the VTA’s implementation of
recommendations made as a result of the 2008
audit by the California State Auditor and whether
implementation issues remain.

Reviewed our July 2008 VTA audit and our subsequent status reviews.

Identified and documented recommendations made in our July 2008 audit. Omitted three recommendations made in our 2008 report. These recommendations asked VTA to continue plans to implement recommendations from a third party. Because the core of these recommendations were actions recommended by a third party and not the California State Auditor, we did not follow up on them during this audit. Using VTA material collected as part of answering the audit objectives above and our July 2008 audit recommendations, determined whether implementation issues remain. 9 Review and assess any other issues that are
significant to the audit.

None identified.

Source: Audit workpapers.

Assessment of Data Reliability
The GAO, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of the computer processed information that we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations.

In performing this audit, we relied on the FTA’s National Transit Database transit agency data to determine the operating costs, ridership, fares collected, and service levels for VTA and the peer agencies. We then used these data to calculate the operating cost per vehicle revenue hour, farebox recovery ratio, and operating cost per passenger trip for each agency. Because FTA collects these data from transit agencies throughout the county by reports that those agencies submit, it was not feasible to assess their reliability.

Further, we relied on VTA board director tenure data to determine the tenure of VTA’s directors who served from 2013 through 2023. To gain assurance that the data contained a complete and accurate list of VTA’s directors and their time in their positions, we compared the director tenure data with VTA board of directors meeting attendance roll call sheets and meeting minutes from January 2013 through December 2023 and found no material differences. We found the VTA data to be sufficiently reliable for purposes of determining the tenure of VTA’ s board directors.

We also obtained the board tenure data from three of the five peer agencies we reviewed— LA Metro, OCTA, and SacRT. However, because the peer agencies were not the subject of this audit, we did not assess the reliability of their data.

In addition, we relied on the VTA’s director attendance data to determine the attendance rate for directors at board meetings and committee meetings from January 2020 through June 2023. To assess both the completeness and accuracy of VTA’s attendance data, we reviewed a total of 29 meetings— 14 board meetings and 15 committee meetings—and compared the director attendance data against independent information about these meetings. To assess for completeness, we compared the attendance data against the calendar of board and committee meetings 65CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
on VTA’s website and found no issues. To assess the data for accuracy, we compared the attendance data against meeting roll call sheets and traced key data elements.

We identified only a single discrepancy in the record of attendance for directors.

Consequently, we found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of determining VTA board director attendance at board and committee meetings. 66 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023- 101
May 20, 2024
Grant Parks, California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Response to Draft Report No. 2023- 101-- Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Dear Mr. Parks and Professional Staff:

We are grateful for the time and attention you took to conduct a thorough audit.

On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) Board of Directors Board”), this is to indicate that the VTA Board and Administration have reviewed California State Auditor ( CSA) Draft Report 2023- 101 (“ Report”).

VTA has a strong and long-term commitment to continuous improvement. Given this, VTA takes this process and all independent evaluations, both internal and external, very seriously and with an open mind. The high priority that VTA places on this process is demonstrated in many ways, two key examples being:

A) To ensure that the Board is fully engaged in reviewing and addressing the Report’ s recommendations, a special closed session meeting was convened on May 16, 2024, as provided under Government Code Section 54956. 75. This allowed VTA’ s governing body to discuss the recommendations and collaboratively evaluate VTA Administration’ s recommended responses and corresponding commitments to corrective action.

B) VTA has since 2009 employed the expert risk advisory services of an independent Auditor General ( AG) to assist the Board in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities of monitoring and managing risks and controls in financial reporting, financial integrity, program activities, and reputational risks. The outsourced AG is selected by and r to the Board. This is a transparent process whereby AG reports and corresponding commitments to corrective action are reviewed and discussed in open session of the Board and publicly available.

The Report provided to VTA included 16 recommendations to VTA. Overall, VTA generally agrees with the recommendations stated in the Report and has committed to implement them.

Several of the recommendations had been previously identified by VTA during the approximately one- year duration it took to complete this audit and thus are already underway.

VTA’ s responses and commitment to corrective action for each of the 16 recommendations, which were unanimously approved by the VTA Board of Directors in closed session on May 16, 2024, are shown on Attachment A.

California State Auditor’ s comments begin on page 77.
67CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023- 101 | June 2024
Grants Parks, California State Auditor
May 20, 2024

Page 2 of 2 ends

Cupertino City CouncilSeptember 3, 2025

Cupertino City Council
September 3, 2025